Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The aggregate of all contingent things need not have a ca... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The cause of the aggregate of all contingent things must be a necessarily existing thing.

    The aggregate of all contingent things need not have a cause, since causal principles apply to members within sets, not to sets themselves.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Causal laws describe relational properties between discrete entities; set-level properties are formal abstractions, not physical entities requiring causes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The sum of all contingent things has no external environment from which a cause could act—causation requires causal relata outside the system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Composition fallacy: properties of members (needing causes) need not apply to the aggregate itself, just as atomic properties differ from molecular ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If each contingent member requires a cause, and the aggregate is composed only of those members, the aggregate inherits this causal dependency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing between 'members need causes' and 'the set needs causes' is a bare stipulation without principled grounding in metaphysical theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The principle that contingent existents require explanation is most plausibly a principle about why anything contingent obtains, not about causal mechanics alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 linked claim · 1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked
    The cause of the aggregate of all contingent things must be a necessarily existi...

    Related

    Causal laws describe relational properties between discrete entities; set-level ...Composition fallacy: properties of members (needing causes) need not apply to th...Distinguishing between 'members need causes' and 'the set needs causes' is a bar...If each contingent member requires a cause, and the aggregate is composed only o...
    +3 moreShow less
    The cause of the aggregate of all contingent things must be a necessarily existi...The principle that contingent existents require explanation is most plausibly a ...The sum of all contingent things has no external environment from which a cause ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit