Not pertinent to the discussion. If you want to discuss book recommendations, I'm sure there's a post somewhere that would be happy to have you.Relax, it was just a book recommendation. — Artemis
Phishing for more credit than you deserve, friend, ain't the way to get it. — 180 Proof
There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is.
— Philosophim
This is my counter to the OP's premises.
It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.
"The type of origin we invent" matters to 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. — 180 Proof
I thought you said it was just a book recommendation? Troll elsewhere Artemis.I thought you said you read it? :rofl: — Artemis
I'm just basing it off the PoSR. The PoSR can only stipulate an X, with only empirical observations entertaining an alpha, no? — Shawn
But, ex nihilo arguments would seem to contradict a first cause argument. Or at least doesn't constitute a first cause, does it? — Shawn
Gibberish. Sorry, man. You've no evidence I didn't read your argument but you give plently that you haven't read my 2 logical and physical counter-arguments aimed directly as your premise. You expect a conversation and yet haven't thought through either what you're saying or the substance of oppositions to it. :meh: — 180 Proof
Something of the sort that something came out of nothing. Such as the existence of the universe, for example? — Shawn
What that argument is doing is applying causality to "nothing". If I say, "Nothing caused this to exist," isn't it the same as saying, "This thing that exists has no prior cause?"
"Nothing" cannot cause something. — Philosophim
The premise has been twice refuted by logic and physics, therefore your argument fails. Period. Stop kidding yourself – the OP is that weak. There's nothing more to discuss unless you adopt another unrefuted premise and thereby make (at least) a valid argument. — 180 Proof
I would state at this point that this new possibility negates the necessarily so conclusion that there must have been a first cause.
That's just my take on the issue. — Shawn
Which if you feel that way, is fine. But why? — Philosophim
Could I get an example of a thing causing something to exist?1. 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
:roll: :confused:It would be nice to see that refutation by logic and physics. And to hear what you think the premise actually is. — Philosophim
For the reason I described - I thought my point was not central to your argument and I didn't want to send your discussion off on a tangent. — T Clark
Most of our understanding of the world is based on statistical effects. It's not the action of two balls on a pool table, it's the mass action of trillions of molecules in a tank. — T Clark
Could I get an example of a thing causing something to exist? — InPitzotl
Yes. thank you! Of course it does. "Causality....because." Hmm. And snapshots. Nothing is happening in a snapshot. But this just caviling on my part.Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state of existence. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball,.... Does that clarify causality? — Philosophim
1. 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
It does seem, though, that cause is most easily seen, understood, appreciated as an observer's account, serving the needs of the observer, rather than something itself. — tim wood
Third possibility: "causation" is a concept of the mind, and does not have any application to things as they exist independently of it. — _db
Example of what? This sounds like a typical example of causality per se. My question is about what you mean causing something to exist.Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball. — Philosophim
Is there a new thing that exists when the 8 ball exists in a new velocity state?The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state — Philosophim
Sure... would that be a new thing existing?You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted. — Philosophim
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.