Because they mean different things. If I were to say that, "I'm going home", and, "I'm going fishing", are equivalent, then I'd be talking rubbish. — S
No, that's not "i.e. the first cause". That's completely unreasonable. — S
If the 'something' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is the first cause... — Devans99
IE A first cause. — Devans99
Don't assume that it is. — S
You must not know what that means. — S
Well the 'something' must logically contain the first cause. The first cause is the explanation for everything else so my substitution is valid. — Devans99
I know precisely what that means.
An uncaused, timeless, first cause.
I have given 3 valid arguments for this position. — Devans99
No, you haven't reasonably justified the entirely assumed necessity of a first cause. — S
I've shown your argument presented here to be faulty and you haven't resolved the fault. — S
Can’t get something from nothing — Devans99
And if it is not, I can argue that infinite time and quantum fluctuations lead to infinite matter density - impossible - so the existence of quantum fluctuations that create matter requires a start of time. — Devans99
I would say as have many, often if indirectly, that you misuse "infinite." — tim wood
Quantums fluctuations create matter? Who says so? What does it mean to "create matter"? — tim wood
And, if every proposition you espoused were granted, you would be no closer to any ultimate answer, yes? Or if you think you would, then just go straight to that argument. — tim wood
If you could kindly point out where these have been shown to be faulty? — Devans99
I agree with Devin99 on this. — christian2017
Some things no matter how seemingly illogical will always exist. As long as matter exists there will be measurement (assuming there is a being that can make measurements such as a bacterial organism or a human). Bacteria have sensors and thus make judgements and pseudo measurements on their surroundings. — christian2017
Yes. Once it is recognised that the first cause has no cause, it becomes clear the only possible answer is 'no reason'. — Devans99
The only problem is that you don't know there is one. You stubbornly cling to arguments previously shown to be faulty, and you want to act like an amnesiac in this respect. — S
You always say my arguments have been proved false elsewhere but won't give a link to where. — Devans99
None of these arguments have you addressed here or elsewhere. — Devans99
Again you come up with no counter arguments... that you have none I will have to assume. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.