Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The aggregate of all contingent things need not have a cause, since causal principles apply to members within sets, not to sets themselves.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If each contingent member requires a cause, and the aggregate is composed only of those members, the aggregate inherits this causal dependency.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Causal laws describe relational properties between discrete entities; set-level properties are formal abstractions, not physical entities requiring causes.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.