Does it though?Caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities. — TheMadFool
A non sequitur is something that does not follow.Non sequitur! — TheMadFool
I have presented another possibility (partially caused, partially uncaused). It therefore does follow that you haven't exhausted all possibilities.Caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities. — TheMadFool
What, this one?:Does it matter to my argument? — TheMadFool
No... that argument makes no sense anyway. It doesn't even allow for the uncaused possibility, much less the partially caused and uncaused. Furthermore, it kind of concludes the notion of a first cause it itself introduced (the one "only nothing" can be) does not make sense, making the entire argument a bit moot.1. The first cause has to be uncaused.
2. Only nothing has no cause.
Ergo,
3. The first cause is nothing.
4. Nothing can't cause anything
Ergo,
5. The notion of a first cause makes zero sense. — TheMadFool
So causal chains don't really trace back along lines, but rather along branches.
And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
No... that argument makes no sense anyway. It doesn't even allow for the uncaused possibility, much less the partially caused and uncaused. Furthermore, it kind of concludes the notion of a first cause it itself introduced (the one "only nothing" can be) does not make sense, making the entire argument a bit moot — InPitzotl
1. The first cause has to be uncaused.
2. Only nothing has no cause.
Ergo,
3. The first cause is nothing.
4. Nothing can't cause anything
Ergo,
5. The notion of a first cause makes zero sense — TheMadFool
Except there could be multiple first causes.Premise 1 can't be denied. — TheMadFool
I see a problem with it:Is this version of my argument more reasonable? — TheMadFool
"Nothing" is being reified here. Think of "south" as a prior on a globe. There are a lot of points on the globe, and they have points south of them, but there's a special place on the globe which has no points south of it: the South Pole. Yet that is itself a point. You are saying something silly, like there's a south to the South Pole that has no points on it. The way you phrase it is, nothing has no south to it. Either way, you're reifying. There's no such thing as a "nothing-place" that is south of the South Pole.2. Nothing has no cause — TheMadFool
...that would be a premise. The premise can be wrong; after all, you have a proof by contradiction and this is one of your premises.And, to top it all off the assumption was if it's something then it has a cause. — TheMadFool
...and that's just introducing a reification.To avoid this contradiction, a way out of this quagmire, is to say that the first cause = nothing (no infinite regress & no contradiction). — TheMadFool
"Nothing" is being reified here. — InPitzotl
Nothing is uncaused like unicorns are uncaused. But unicorns being uncaused have nothing to do with anything; they're uncaused because they don't exist.If nothing is being reified and seeing that it's true that nothing is uncaused, — TheMadFool
It has nothing to do with "the first cause argument". Unicorns are uncaused therefore the first cause argument reifies nothing?the problem then lies in the first cause argument - it necessitates a reification of nothing. — TheMadFool
How many nothings are there?Plus, you seem to be implying nothing is just a concept. Are you sure? — TheMadFool
Likewise, nothing can't cause for there's nothing to cause.Nothing can't be caused for there's nothing to cause. — TheMadFool
So? Both the south pole and the color red don't have points south of them; the south pole because it's the southernmost point, the color red vacuously because it's nonsense to say something is south of it.Both the first cause and nothing are uncaused. — TheMadFool
No, they aren't identical. They're like the south pole and the color red here. I can make sense of the south pole having no points south of it. I can't make sense of the color red being south of the south pole; it's just nonsense.In terms of a prior cause, the first cause and anothing are identical — TheMadFool
I quoted you! You're also obviously reacting.Ignoratio elenchi! — TheMadFool
I quoted you! You're also obviously reacting. — InPitzotl
The First Cause has to be the the simplest partless state. If it has parts, then the parts were there before it. — PoeticUniverse
Nothing is uncaused like unicorns are uncaused. But unicorns being uncaused have nothing to do with anything; they're uncaused because they don't exist. — InPitzotl
It has nothing to do with "the first cause argument". Unicorns are uncaused therefore the first cause argument reifies nothing? — InPitzotl
How many nothings are there? — InPitzotl
Likewise, nothing can't cause for there's nothing to cause — InPitzotl
I believe what you are talking about are limits like in calculus? Or are you talking about the limits of precision? For example, .1 becomes .11, becomes .111, etc? — Philosophim
First, I am talking about the "first cause", not any "prior cause". Then, I assumed that there cannot be a physical thing that is cause of itself, which you have just accepted. Therefore, it must be non-physical. It doesn't have to be "God". I said "God, Supreme Being, Universal Consciousness, etc.". Its nature is not important here.Physical or non-physical, that would be a prior cause — Philosophim
Confusing the concept with the thing? "What caused my car to start" my brains/minds depending on my philosophy?Unicorns are caused - they are by our brains/minds depending on your philosophy. — TheMadFool
Apparently not... it can't cause:As uncaused, nothing is a candidate for the title of a first cause with respect to being uncaused. — TheMadFool
Likewise, nothing can't cause for there's nothing to cause — InPitzotl
Yup! — TheMadFool
Presumably there's at least one, if it's a first cause.I don't understand the question. — TheMadFool
I'm just using your argument to derive the impossibility of a South Pole like you're using it to derive the impossibility of a first cause.The rest of your post doesn't make sense. — TheMadFool
Confusing the concept with the thing? "What caused my car to start" my brains/minds depending on my philosophy? — InPitzotl
Apparently not... it can't cause: — InPitzotl
Presumably there's at least one, if it's a first cause. — InPitzotl
I'm just using your argument to derive the impossibility of a South Pole like you're using it to derive the impossibility of a first cause. — InPitzotl
If there can be one, why can't there be more than one?Are you saying that there could be more than 1 first cause? Care to share why exactly? — TheMadFool
Must a first cause be a god?A team of gods? — TheMadFool
If you can handle one first cause, what's the problem with handling any arbitrary number? Is there some rule you're applying where you'll "allow" one first cause "but no more"? Why should the universe care about such a rule?It seems a bit too extravagant; it's more than some of us can handle. — TheMadFool
If there can be one, why can't there be more than one? — InPitzotl
Must a first cause be a god? — InPitzotl
If you can handle one first cause, what's the problem with handling any arbitrary number? Is there some rule you're applying where you'll "allow" one first cause "but no more"? Why should the universe care about such a rule? — InPitzotl
Are you saying that there could be more than 1 first cause? Care to share why exactly?
— TheMadFool
If there can be one, why can't there be more than one?
A team of gods?
— TheMadFool
Must a first cause be a god?
It seems a bit too extravagant; it's more than some of us can handle.
— TheMadFool
If you can handle one first cause, what's the problem with handling any arbitrary number? Is there some rule you're applying where you'll "allow" one first cause "but no more"? — InPitzotl
Yes, I think this is undeniable. — 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.