The universe doesn't give a damn if it follows our logic or not. — Manuel
Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
My post simply shows that "first ... logically necessary" is incoherent. — 180 Proof
I don't follow the logic of your discussion, but that doesn't matter, since I don't see why this is true. — T Clark
Depends on how we think of cause. It's not impossible that the universe came into being for no reason or cause. Someone can say that makes no sense at all, but it could be the case for all we know. — Manuel
If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists, then its not truly infinite causality, as it is something outside of the infinite causality chain. That X then becomes another Y with the same 3 plausibilities of prior causality. Therefore, the existence of a prior causality is actually an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim
Maybe this is the case, maybe it's not. We have to "stop the buck" somewhere otherwise we go down an infinite chain of postulates. We don't know enough to say either is the case. — Manuel
An argument could be made for both needing a first cause (or an uncaused cause) or not needing one, in the case the universe is actually infinite. — Manuel
No, sir, I also read your opening sentence:You're judging my post based on the title? — Philosophim
Clearly it does not. This "concluded ... necessity" has long been refuted in both philosophy (logic) and physics (QG) which, like others on these fora, I've paraphrasedIn thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". — Philosophim
Re: the "kalam argument" fails ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/484423
Re: a physical interpretation ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/373602 — 180 Proof
Fair enough, I am presupposing some knowledge here. — Philosophim
The argument that I'm making is that yes, the universe could be finitely or infinitely regressive, but that there logically can be no cause for why this should be. Many people say, "The universe could not have formed on its own," but my conclusion is, "The universe necessarily formed on its own". — Philosophim
No, sir, I also read your opening sentence: — 180 Proof
I just wanted it to be clear that your assumption is not self-evident. — T Clark
The best we can say is that the universe is all there is, unless the multiverse theory happens to be true, which is difficult to test at the moment. — Manuel
If it is infinite however, it was never formed, it just is. — Manuel
This is my counter to the OP's premises.There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is. — Philosophim
"The type of origin we invent" matters to the degree it is consistent with the best available observational data and measurements. Logic, as it were, is merely the syntax of any "origin we invent" and not metaphysically determinative as you apparently to believe.It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.
According to my argument, no. To disprove this, you either need to show a flaw in my logic, or show why it is logically necessary that the emergence of time must be preceded by time.The emergence of time must be preceded by time. — Verdi
That's a rather large topic that covers many points. You'll need to narrow down what specific points counter my reasons if we're to have a meaningful conversation. I have read it before, and I have a good understanding of the subject matter.See Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason" — Artemis
Disappointing. You made a mistake in thinking it was a particular topic that it is not, and instead of bothering to read it and enter the conversation, you've doubled down on not reading it, and insisting its something that it is not. I expected better.What "strawmen"? Stop special pleading ... Your premise is incoherent, therefore the argument fails. QED. — 180 Proof
According to my argument, no. To disprove this, you either need to show a flaw in my logic, or show why it is logically necessary that the emergence of time must be preceded by time. — Philosophim
You'll need to narrow down what specific points counter my reasons if we're to have a meaningful conversation. I have read it before, and I have a good understanding of the subject matter. — Philosophim
I'd say that there's a mistake of saying a first cause instead of a 'prior' cause.
Besides the Principle of Sufficient Reason can only (without appeal to metaphysics) posit a prior cause. — Shawn
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.