Is it more logical today or something, does logic have a half life now?
The most simplest form of plutonium is hydrogen, I doubt though appealing to the half life of matter is going to win me any awards. Any more than reducing something to nothing is likely to make more sense given enough time. Something doesn’t become less meaningful over time.
Existence exists because it exists. Profound it is not.
At best the question of origin itself is tautological and you exposed that axiom, philosophy! it’s like just that obvious. Teleos by tautology.
I didnt see you address the logic at all. I just figured you didnt know I was referring to what I said yesterday.
If you want to refute what I said you’ll have to actually know what I said and work with that.
Dude, I am just resolving the threads topic. It wasn’t me who put it forward in the first place.
I agree that it’s obvious, if you have a capacity for abstract thought and can see through terms to what the terms mean and when they mean it.
Thats not a common capacity at all, and in this thread some will interpret words as if “common english” was what was being spoken before the universe existed and by the absolute validity of which the universe was caused.
You said it exists because by its own principles it cannot not exist. If that is not a tautology what is it, it’s certainly logically paradoxical (so by the law of opposites which I just made up conveniently enough) does that make it objectively true?
Hence what I refer you to what I said in response to what you said, which you disagreed with. Hence this discussion which I can reliably be sure you also disagree with for the same initial reasons you disagreed with the original original, as I said ontology of ontology of ontology ad nauseum, I said that you can check.
One thing we can be sure of though (ironically) is it whatever it is, is not caused by what it isn’t…
Which is a direct contradiction of your assertion that it exists because it cant not exist. Which leads me to conclude that it not existing is not an axiom or a starting point from which I can induce existence and vice a versa nor is it necessary to the eternal nor does it have to remain consistent or be included, integral or conducive to be so, nor is a position you postulated with the statement of logic or its inference contingent on that or anything else in that post as aforementioned. Existence is not a priori and its not not a priori or is it.
If it is eternal then a cause is relevant, if its not it’s not. Seems pretty airtight to me.
a cause of a cause caused by an infinite regression of causes leads to an infinite regression paradox then. If it’s not eternal it needs a cause so logically if it is eternal it does not need a cause, if it has a cause it’s eternal if it doesn’t it isn’t, you see where this goes…
Yep. Saying general things about science is him speaking out of his element in a Dawkins kind of way. The infinite regress stuff is him actually speaking about his own work that he’s done- most of his serious philosophical work has been on apologetics, the infinite, and time.
Depends on if you're willing to break your own rule and start talking about The Universe as a single thing, and not as a set of things. I thought we weren't doing that. If the universe is a set of things, then a bunch of those things causing each other in some sort of regress- finite or infinite. If you think an infinite one is acceptable, then ok. If not, you need an uncaused cause to get the ball rolling. Whether you call that uncaused cause a part of the universe, or external to the universe is just semantic, right?
Eternal only belongs to the higher existent state being light. Creation is in the materialized state and that is aging and dying, so it has been leaving from the moment it was created, it is not moving into creation it is leaving it.
The argument is not personal, but you always seem to try to make it personal…what is your problem?
Everything is created because it is actualized, you cannot study a pre created state because it already exists. If it did not exist then what are you theorizing about…something that does not exist…you already tell yourself that it does not exist…what is wrong with your brain?
Perhaps Hel’s happy, and that’s how he expresses his energy. Perhaps Hel’s effort is humor intended to brighten the mood of the forum in a creative way. Perhaps he slept with your mom, or more.
