Sure, but the event without the object is only the movement of the objects, that is, the movement of the hammer causing the movement of the nail. And movements are quantified by energy (kinetic), which brings me back to my first point, that there can be no greater energy in the effect than in the cause.

Now if 'all that can exist' is 'anything that we can conceive', and 'anything that we can conceive' is 'anything that must exist', then 'all that can exist' is 'anything that must exist'. — Samuel Lacrampe

While it may be hard to pronounce, the argument is really a simple syllogism in the form:
If A is B, and B is C, then A is C.
- Replace A with 'all that can exist'
- Replace B with 'anything that we can conceive'
- Replace C with 'anything that must exist'

Your premise is that everything has a cause. — SophistiCat

Actually, I don't think that 'everything has a cause'. Only that 'everything in the natural universe has a cause'. There is no need to extend the principle further than the data set that we can observe, which is only the natural universe.

It is very much debatable that this is a self-evident truth or that we have no choice but adopt this a metaphysical axiom. — SophistiCat

Logically, either a thing has a cause or else it is an eternal being which has always existed, because everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. It could be that eternal things exist in the natural universe but I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

What's important is (a) not to assume that what carries the authority of common usage is true — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed. Common usage or common sense determines the prima facie or default position, but is not a proof.

If that seems too clever, here's another: striking the nail with a hammer causes the nail to enter the board. The nail entering the board has the property of wood being displaced by steel; the hammer striking the nail does not. — Srap Tasmaner

This is not the causal relationship between the hammer and the nail. The only effect to the nail caused by the hammer is the energy from the hammer received to the nail. And we know that the energy received is not greater than the original energy due to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy can be created.

Begging the question by assuming that there is a God and that the Bible is his words. — Michael

I agree. But my intent was not to prove God's existence, merely to answer the question of 'how do people go from the first cause to God?' This is my answer for believers.

And thirdly, it wouldn't follow that the first cause is that which nothing greater can exist, only that the first cause is that which nothing greater does exist. — Michael

Mmm... You may have a point here... But I'll attempt to refute it anyways.
Can we agree that 'anything that can exist' is 'anything that can be conceived' without contradiction? Now I summon Hume's principle that there are no innate ideas, that all conceptions must come from experience; and thus anything that we can conceive must exist at some point. This does not mean that just because I can imagine a unicorn, that unicorns exist, but that the basic components of the unicorn (colours, shapes, sounds, ...) must exist.

Now if 'all that can exist' is 'anything that we can conceive', and 'anything that we can conceive' is 'anything that must exist', then 'all that can exist' is 'anything that must exist'. (wow that was hard).

We define a "greater cause" to be a cause which possesses all the properties that its correlated effects possess. — Srap Tasmaner

Just nitpicking: Your definition makes the cause 'equal', not necessarily 'greater'.

No effect has a property not possessed by its cause.
This is patently false, as a moment's reflection would show. — Srap Tasmaner

Can you show me why?

Premise 1 is a claim about language use among I don't know what community of speakers, which doesn't seem like it would suit what seems to be a metaphysical argument. There's also something there about this community's imaginative capacity, and I don't know what to do with that that either. I don't know how to verify any of those claims, or what I would have if I did. Even if Premise 1 is true in some specified sense, what good is it? — Srap Tasmaner

That's okay if you have not heard of God being defined in that way before. You just need to 'buy' into the definition for us to have a meaningful argument; because we cannot argue if we are not on a common ground when it comes to the terms used. We could technically replace the word 'God', with the word 'X', and this would not change the validity of the syllogism, as long as we agree on the meaning of the terms.

Regarding 'an effect cannot be greater than its cause(s)'. You've all asked what it means and how to back it up. Here goes.
'Greater' here means that the effect cannot possess a property that was not present in its cause(s). This follows from the self-evident principle that 'nothing can come from nothing', or 'nothing can bring itself into existence'. Therefore, whatever property the effect has (be it physical or not) must come from its cause(s). Now if we assume that a single first cause exists, then it must possess all properties that its effects possess, because the effects' properties must have been received by the first cause.

The inference is valid from the premises.
Premise 1: God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. You can look it up; I did not come up with the definition.
Premise 2: No effect can be greater than its cause(s). This is a principal in causality. If you object, you would need to find an exception to this principal.

Why not? Where do you see a flaw in the logic?

The structure AND meaning of the word, "supernatural", shows that it stems from the world, "natural", which means that it is dependent upon the existence of the natural, which means that the natural came first and then the supernatural. — Harry Hindu

I see your point. We just need to differentiate between the epistemological order and metaphysical order of the two words. Epistemologically, we humans first experience the natural world and then may call some things supernatural when these don't behave as per the laws of our natural world. Metaphysically however, the supernatural is the cause of the natural, and thus existed prior to it. Sure, you can switch the labels around if desired, as long as the definitions are clear to everyone. For practical purposes though, I would stick to the conventional definitions.

The problem is that it's quite a leap to go from "the first cause doesn't behave according to the laws of physics" to "the first cause is God". — Michael

It is. But we can bridge that gap a couple of ways:
1. In Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End". God himself says he is the first cause.
2. God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can exist'. Combine this with the principle that 'no effect can be greater than its cause(s)', and we deduce that the first cause is that which nothing greater can exist, and therefore the first cause is God.

If the universe was the effect of some cause, then that cause would be "natural" too, as there would be a causal relationship between the cause and the effect. — Harry Hindu

You are contradicting yourself, because you agreed earlier that "everything in the natural universe has a cause". The first cause, by definition, has a causal relationship, but no cause.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding and you meant instead that "everything in the natural universe has a causal relationship"? But that statement is false: Miracles have a causal relationship with the thing acted upon, and yet they are not classified as natural events. God has a causal relationship with his creation, and yet is not classified as a natural being.

Why must there be a "first" natural thing? Why isn't it natural all the way down? — Harry Hindu

Because if the universe has a beginning, then there must be a first thing. The only logical alternative is no beginning. But finiteness is a simpler hypothesis than infinity, and so, as per Occam's Razor, it becomes the prima facie until proven otherwise.
- Then this first natural thing is caused by another thing which has no cause (the first cause), for nothing can be the cause of itself.
- And everything in the natural universe has a cause, as we have established earlier.
- Therefore this first cause must be supernatural.

I also agree with here. Maybe we should find clear definitions of 'natural' and 'supernatural', if it is not already done.

No problem. Good luck.

Let's go for solution 2 then: I have recently wrote a 20-page document which provides a practical method on how to solve emotional problems. It can be read or downloaded here. It takes about 1 hour to read, and about 3 hours for the full treatment (which does not need to be done all in one go). I will summarize the content here:

• It first gives a rational explanation of what an emotional feeling is, its purpose, and limitations.
• It then differentiates between a legitimate feeling (one that should be there) and an illegitimate feeling (one that should not be there).
• It then establishes a strong parallel between an illegitimate emotional feeling and what is called a 'physical allergy'. Thus 'illegitimate emotional feelings' can be called 'emotional allergies'.
• It then describes a method to eliminate emotional allergies, based on a similar proven method designed to eliminate physical allergies.

It has worked for me and hope it works for others too. I am aware that it takes a bit of homework to get the benefit of the solution, and so if I can provide any help along the way, just let me know.

First check: Do you have stomach-related problems? I recently read a book that talks about how the stomach health plays a critical role in our emotional state, and I can attest from experience. I am talking about evident stomach problems, not the occasional one from drinking too much. If yes, then I would look no further for the cause. I can then provide what I know on this.

If no, then there is another solution I can offer, but will wait for the answer before giving more details on that one.

(Y)

Hey. I tried your link and it does not seem to work.

Hello. May I ask, would you define the cause of the depression more as rational or emotional? Rational would be like the philosopher Satre who was convinced that life is meaningless. Emotional would be like finding no particular reasons for the depression and yet there it is. If rational, then I think us bunch of amateur philosophers in this forum can come up with strong arguments to change your mind. If emotional, then I may be able to provide a few solutions based on experience with my own depressions, which I have for the most part defeated.

Sorry, I don't think I can provide much insight on interpreting your dreams.

Hello. I like your position of prima facie. Thus us supernaturalists have the onus of proof that not all phenomena can be explained by natural causes. Have you looked at Aquinas's five ways? He uses them to prove God but it can be modified slightly to prove supernaturalism. Here is a summary of one them:
- Everything in the natural universe has a cause. We have yet to find an exception to this rule, therefore that becomes the prima facie.
- But then the first natural thing must have a cause, which itself either does not have a cause or is not a natural thing, because otherwise that antecedent thing would be the 'first natural thing', and not the other one.
- Therefore supernatural things exist.

I don't know the facts but will take a reasonable guess at Plato's rationale. Implicitly, we all understand the word God to mean 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' (later explicitly stated by St. Anselm). This definition implies perfection, which includes moral perfection.

I know that the greek gods were not seen as perfect, but I think Plato, just like Socrates, was referring to a different concept of the word god, much closer to our modern definition.

Hi. Let's remove the word 'new'. Do we need axioms for philosophy? Yes.
To avoid for a claim to be arbitrary, the claim must be backed up by premises, then these premises must be backed up by further premises, and so on, until we reach a starting point, Archimedean point as Descartes would say, or first principle. Examples of first principles of ethics for Thomas Aquinas: do good and avoid evil. Seek truth and reject falsehood.

By a semi-idealist reasoning, there's an "abstract cow" that somehow exists "objectively" and independently of all else, sort of in it's own ("timeless") realm of reified abstracts. — jorndoe

Can you provide the reason as to why that is? I think the reason is that if all particular cows in the world were to disappear today, there would still remain the abstract cow in our minds; and therefore the abstract cow is independent of the particular cows in the world. But this argument is refuted by Aristotle who states that although the idea remains in our mind, it was originally abstracted from the particular cows. In other words, if no particular cows existed in the first place, then we would never have conceived the idea of abstract cow, and therefore the abstract cow originated from the particulars. I think this is also what @Wayfarer was explaining in his first post above. Therefore the "realm of reified abstracts" is an unnecessary hypothesis.

If god* exists, he must be infinitely better than us. — heraclitus

This is not how we should see God. Rather than saying God is infinitely good, it is more accurate to say He is 100% good. As for us, we are somewhere between 0% and 100% (let's call that value x). Just as the reach from x to 100% is not infinite, so our language of the moral good is not meaningless. The same applies when it comes to acquiring truth.

To paraphrase a philosopher (I think C.S. Lewis but not certain), if our goodness and wisdom is like the attempt of a child to hand draw a circle, then the goodness and wisdom of God is like a perfect circle, and not a complex shape that is unimaginable to the child.

This is odd because I agree with the logic of your argument, just not in the conclusion that free will does not exist. Yes we have free will, no we are not free to choose to have free will or not. Much like a free man is free to do a lot of things but not free to tie his own hands. It follows that our free will is limited, not that it does not exist.

But all believers of free will are aware of this: No one is free to come into existence, no one is free from the laws of logic, or even the laws of physics, and no one with free will is free from free will.

So, for example, the positive feeling that a junky might have when s/he finds some drugs would reflect the positive meaning of what? — jkop

Good point. You are a step ahead. We need to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate emotional feelings. A feeling is legit if it truly reflects the nature of the event, both in direction and magnitude. If not, then it is illegit. A junky or addict has an illegit pleasure towards its drugs, hence the addiction. But a strong feeling of fear towards encountering a tiger would be a legit feeling, because the event is strongly negative (you could die) and the feeling is equally negative.

Why must it be positive? — jkop

I meant 'must' in the sense of 'may', or 'is an indication'. But it presupposes that the feeling is legitimate, which is indeed not always the case.

And whence the assumption that emotions would have a purpose? — jkop

Every part of the human body has a purpose. Legs to move, hands to grab, nails to scratch, eyes to see, hair to protect our skin from the sun, sweat to cool down etc. Even physical feelings have a purpose: to reflect the health state of the body. Hence when the body is damaged, we feel physical pain. When the body's needs are fulfilled (e.g. drinking when thirsty) then we feel physical pleasure. If all other parts have a purpose, then emotions too must have a purpose.

The emotion is the feeling. — jkop

Typo. I meant "If the feeling is negative, then it is an indication that the event must have been negative". I have corrected the original post. Thanks.

Hello. I wrote a short document about emotions a while back.
Emotional Feeling: An effect an individual experiences, which results from experiencing an "Event" (an experience directly perceived by the individual). Emotional feelings have two properties like a vector:
1. A direction: positive called pleasure, and negative called pain.
2. A magnitude or intensity or degree: a strong versus weak emotional response.

Much like you can learn about a cause from its effect, the purpose of emotional feelings is to reflect the meaning of the event that triggered it. If the feeling is positive, then it is an indication that the event must have been positive. If the feeling is negative, then it is an indication that the event must have been negative.

The Greatest Commandment(s) in Christianity. Matthew 22:35-40:
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[as @Wosret pointed out earlier]. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

This indeed could be the case for life (at least simple life). Regarding the claim that 'everything is material', what about non-material things like the moral law or law of logic? Surely these exist and are neither matter nor energy.

A good point. There is a misunderstanding in the word 'material'. I use the term in the general sense that includes not only matter but also energy, processes, and in short anything that can be observable or empirical. Thus the processes you speak of fit into the category of material things that give life, labelled as Y. If these processes can be restored, then we could logically (in theory) restore Y to X and thus revive a dead cow.

To bring you up to speed, some people did not disagree with the X+Y reasoning, but only in the claim that it seems absurd. Thus they believe that life Y is a material thing, and that, indeed, we could logically restore life into a dead cow given sufficient technology.

Wait, everybody has to agree with it? Don't remember that being a requirement. I have personally found some math problems to be cute, and I can find an exception to the hamster thing as well, even if I'm not that exception. — noAxioms

Not 100% has to agree with it, for I am sure there exists outliers, but they would be just that: outliers. The requirement can be called 'common sense', 'every day language', or 'right opinion'. Exceptions, by definition, would fall into outliers.

The way the word is used in common language is of no use when trying to decide if something new is life or not. — noAxioms

If not that, then what else could be used as the foundation to determine if something new is life or not? A majority rule on arbitrary opinions? I am hoping for something objective.

So what is the essence of 'essence'? — noAxioms

Essence or essential properties: properties critical to the meaning of a term, such that if they were to be removed, then the term would lose its original meaning. Example: essential properties of a triangle: 'flat surface' + '3 sides'. If the surface is not flat, it is not a triangle. If the surface does not have 3 sides, it is not a triangle. Conversely, 'red' is not an essential property, because a red triangle remains a triangle if the redness is removed.

What doesn't have essence? — noAxioms

I am not certain, but I think not every term has an essence. It appears to be the case for slang words such as "it sucks" or "he is a jerk". We can test the term by attempting to find a particular that fits into the category of the term that everyone agrees with, and another particular that fits outside the category.

You just seems to be asserting that every adjective or noun in the language has an essence, and the proof you give is needless given that assertion. — noAxioms

Why? The proof would be needless if no one questioned that essences exist, or if it was self-evident; but that is not the case.

Let me try this logic out. Suppose I try to nail down the essence of 'cute'. I pick an arbitrary way to sort things into two heaps: A thing is cute if it masses more than a KG. So I am cute, but this pebble is not. There is at least one thing in each heap, therefore there must be an essence of cute. Somehow the proof seems invalid. — noAxioms

Indeed your proof is invalid because it is not commonsensical to label you as cute and to label the pebble as not. It would only be valid, and thus match my argument, if you found a particular that fits into the category 'cute' that everyone (or close to) agrees with, and found for another particular that fits outside of the category of 'cute' that everyone agrees with.

Better example: A hamster is cute. A math exam is not. Therefore the essence of 'cute' exists.

I think the golden rule applies to all groups: individuals, companies, states, etc.
Of course, the complexity is increased when more members are involved, and so this makes its application challenging, but not impossible. When it comes to conflicts between states, the Just War Theory applies, which is an adaptation of the golden rule specific to wars. It is summarized as such:
- Just cause: Reason to go to war must be justified.
- Competent authority: The government must know the facts correctly.
- Right intention: The goal is to restore peace in the long run.
- Last resort: All alternative peaceful measures to prevent the war have been exhausted.
- Proportionality: The war-option may not cause more evil than the no-war option.

This is the theory. In practice, I am sure there can be really sticky situations like being an honest german soldier during the nazi regime; in which case the 'right thing to do that will result in a successful outcome' is not easy to find.

There are those that have argued on these forums that rocks are an example of life, or that dogs are not. — noAxioms

I am amazed. Only philosophers could come up with such conclusions.

I may not agree with these positions, but I have no rule which I can apply to prove either of them wrong. — noAxioms

A fair point. It is tough to explain but here goes. I invoke Aristotle's theory of abstraction: We all have in ourselves the implicit knowledge of terms such as 'living' and 'non-living'. This is so by our years of sense observation of the world. This implicit knowledge is what enables us to use the terms correctly in everyday language, even if we don't have the explicit definition of all the terms used. Thus a 10-year old can have a meaningful conversation without ever having read a dictionary. Finding the essence of terms is simply acquiring explicit knowledge based on our implicit knowledge. I think our implicit knowledge that a dog is living and a rock is non-living is pretty grounded.

How does this arbitrary selection provide evidence that there is an actual essence of 'bald'? — noAxioms

It doesn't in any direct way. We got side tracked by you claiming that the essence of A and B must exist for the law of non-contradiction to be applicable. I refute this by claiming that we only need consistency and not essence for it. If we agree to this, then my first premise in the argument to prove that essences exist stands: "Either a being is a living being or a non-living being. It cannot be both."

How so? — noAxioms

Maybe "circular" was the wrong word; my bad. Nevertheless, it sounds like you demand to know X in order to prove X using the law of non-contradiction. But if X is known, then it must have already been proven. A valid proof implies a logical proof. A logical proof implies that is passes the law of non-contradiction.

I too like to think that the (modern) man-made laws of justice are based on the natural laws of objective justice. Also when in doubt for a particular act, there is always the good old golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you want them to do onto you.

I think you are saying that might makes these acts legal, authorizes them, calls them good, and gets away with them. To this, I agree. But I think "might makes right" translates to "might makes an act objectively just", and to that, I disagree. We can determinate the justice of an act by testing if it passes or fails the golden rule: Do onto others as you want them to do onto you.
- Nazis exterminating the Jews, Gypsies, Jehovahs Witnesses, homosexuals, Slavs, criminals: fail.
- Apartheid regime of South Africa, even if the white rulers of South Africa thought it was appropriate: fail.
- Armenian genocide: I am guessing fail. I don't know much about this one.
- Israelis feel imminently justified in the establishment of Israel: maybe, this is a matter of facts I think.
- The United States exterminating Indians: fail, unless they attempted every other possible ways to make peace, which I doubt.