Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 05-26-2002, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
<strong>

Your reasoning here is actually more in line with that reasoning that Tercel is arguing against. HIs argument would be more like saying this fork is made out of atoms, therefore, the fork is a collection of atoms. The fork as a whole is not an atom, but it is a thing made out of atoms.

An ariplane is made mostly of steele parts, that makes it a steele air plane.

Which doesn't mean that a particular property of steel automatically applies to a plane. Steel doesn't fly, for instance.

Quote:

The analogy as applied to cosmolgoical argument; the unvierse is a collection of contingencies, therefore, the universe is contingent. Why wouldn't it be? If it's just a collections of contingentcies why is it not contingent?</strong>

Since a gold brick is a collection of (colorless) gold atoms, why is it not colorless ?

Let's assume for a moment - against my personal opinion - that the whole contingency business makes sense. Then although "x1 exists", "x2 exists" ..... may all not be necessarily true, "x1 exists or x2 exists or x3 exists ...." may be necessarily true. Thus a collection of contingents isn't automatically contingent as well.

Regards,
HRG.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.