No it isn’t, we derive that from the definition of contingency. That’s why it’s called the argument from contingency. It ‘s not arbitrary, it is reached by tracing back the hierarchies of dependence. Some say the universe is the uncaused cause and some argue that it must be something else, because they argue, the universe is contingent. The necessary entity is that which ultimately accounts for all the contingency in the universe and removes the absurdity of non contingent contingency.
That it eliminates an infinite chain is, it seems to me, a by product and not the main event as you suggest. Difficult to see how this entity isn’t continuous with the contingent universe we know. It seems you want the absurdity of everything being contingent which leaves the whole contingent ensemble wanting a cause. With just a wee tweek though, you could have a necessary being.
But that ultimate cause that you cite IS a non-contingent contingency. The argument from contingency, logically, DEMANDS an infinite regress.
Why call the necessary being God? Because the attributes of this entity are not found in contingent beings e.g ultimacy, fundementalcy total independence, permanence, not subject to greater laws, singular, componentless, non corporeal. It wills because nothing wills for it. In short, not the stuff of atheism
Why non-corporeal? Why does that progress from contingency? I don't see, apart from that, why 'the Cosmos' doesn't equally fit the bill, and doesn't add the necessity of explaining how a complex intelligence 'just exists' and is non-corporeal but somehow has corporeal influence. Even if we accept the idea that contingency logically leads inevitably to necessary, that's still a huge gap away from, therefore that necessity is intelligent, deliberate and influential in an ongoing manner.
Where do we draw the line between contingent and necessary? we know the attributes of both contingent beings and necessary beings.
No, we don't, we're presuming (in some instances deducing) some of the attributes, but you're assigning a whole host more - why is the necessary intelligent? Why is it deliberately creative? Why does it care?
Can’t see how that cannot have happened at a Big Bang.
It possibly did, it's one explanation for what dark matter and dark energy might be.
Could it have worked in another way?
Again, possibly, but I'm not aware of any of those ways that would have been as relevant.
If so we are left wondering what is the reason it’s this way, and not another or the inevitable questions , why change?
You are begging the question - before I need to explain a 'why' you need to explain in what fashion 'why' is meaningful. Why presumes a reason, you haven't explained that there is a 'why' that needs exploring. It merely is, it is an inevitable consequence of the prior events - you know, contingency.
And why a universe rather than nothing?
Covered, as the hip-folks are saying these days.
Where do you draw the line between contingent fact and brute fact?
Just behind God, at that point where you're suggesting that there isn't something underlying it. The difference is that I'm suggesting a concept - universal physical laws - are a brute fact, you're proposing a specific entity.
I never said it did cease to exist but after heat death nothing happens as you say, moreover,it points back to a beginning.
It doesn't inevitably lead to a cyclic nature - it might, it might not - but importantly whether we find meaning in it or not is not what defines whether it exists or not. The heat death means nothing changes - that existence continues, and the universe is infinite.
If the universe were temporally infinite then, heat death would have occurred an infinitely long time ago.
But we don't believe that the universe is temporally infinite backwards - we have a clear indication of a start point. It extends infinitely into the future, perhaps. It's the broader cosmos that I'm suggesting might be infinite, with any number of finite or infinite universes bubbling through it.
Some mechanism would need to be driving it, an input would be needed from something that was infinitely powerful and not itself subject to entropy.
The Cosmos, you mean? The totality of all the potential energy of reality, constantly roiling and boiling and occasionally dribbling out the argument from contingency through an elaborate and entirely accidental sequence of events that include a Big Bang, the evolution of intelligent life, the abrogation of that intelligence in the pursuit of superstition and internet chat forums.
O.
Recent Posts