Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming.

[Moral Orel]

We probably both agree that not just anything can exist without a cause. That fact to me seems a pretty good indication that "uncaused" necessarily includes other properties.

Everything has other properties other than "caused" or "uncaused".

But for mere "uncaused", necessarily implied is also the fact of continuing existence by its own being, not by external facts, no? It is not just that it did not begin because of something else.

Doesn't imply that at all and that is all that "uncaused" is. You'll have to argue for that added property of being indestructible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
We probably both agree that not just anything can exist without a cause. That fact to me seems a pretty good indication that "uncaused" necessarily includes other properties.

Everything has other properties other than "caused" or "uncaused".

But "uncaused" itself, does that in itself imply other properties?


Mark Quayle said: ↑
But for mere "uncaused", necessarily implied is also the fact of continuing existence by its own being, not by external facts, no? It is not just that it did not begin because of something else.

Doesn't imply that at all and that is all that "uncaused" is. You'll have to argue for that added property of being indestructible.

I didn't say 'indestructible', though that is an interesting tangent. I guess we'll have to back up and review if self-existent implies uncaused, and vice versa —that is, if the uncaused item exists.

 

[Moral Orel]

But "uncaused" itself, does that in itself imply other properties?

I see no reason for it to imply any specific properties. If you do, then you need to provide those reasons.

I didn't say 'indestructible', though that is an interesting tangent. I guess we'll have to back up and review if self-existent implies uncaused, and vice versa —that is, if the uncaused item exists.

We've defined "uncaused". Nothing caused it to exist. There is nothing more to the definition of that property. If there are any other properties that must accompany a thing being "uncaused", then you need to define them and you need to argue for them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I see no reason for it to imply any specific properties. If you do, then you need to provide those reasons.


We've defined "uncaused". Nothing caused it to exist. There is nothing more to the definition of that property. If there are any other properties that must accompany a thing being "uncaused", then you need to define them and you need to argue for them.

We've both made assertions, and what we agreed on we haven't supported. If you have a problem with me asserting the continuing existence of 'uncaused', do more than tell me "nothing more needs added than that nothing caused it to exist." I say by definition it also means, "nothing causes (present tense) it to exist." To me, that also is self-evident.

 

[Moral Orel]

We've both made assertions, and what we agreed on we haven't supported.

We don't need to support the things we agree on. Why would we bother proving something we both already agree is true?

I say by definition it also means, "nothing causes (present tense) it to exist." To me, that also is self-evident.

That would be a different term. We agree that something can exist which was not caused to exist. We'll call that A. If you're proposing that something can exist whose existence is not affected by anything else (we'll call that B), then you are proposing a different property.

Now I agree that (if B then A). You need to provide reasons that (if A then B).

 

[Mark Quayle]

We don't need to support the things we agree on. Why would we bother proving something we both already agree is true?

Because it helps to understand why we believe the things we disagree on, or at least, it helps to define them.

That would be a different term. We agree that something can exist which was not caused to exist. We'll call that A. If you're proposing that something can exist whose existence is not affected by anything else (we'll call that B), then you are proposing a different property.

Now I agree that (if B then A). You need to provide reasons that (if A then B).

Your term, 'uncaused' can be preceeded by 'is' just as readily as 'was'. We did not limit it either way. You have added the limit of "in the past". I am only demonstrating that that limit is not valid.

 

[Moral Orel]

Your term, 'uncaused' can be preceeded by 'is' just as readily as 'was'. We did not limit it either way. You have added the limit of "in the past". I am only demonstrating that that limit is not valid.

Let's go back to the beginning then:

It is not just that it did not begin because of something else.

I didn't add a limit. I'm agreeing to part of what you've claimed. You need to justify the rest.

If "X is not just Y" is true, then "X is Y" is true. I agree X is Y. Now you need to justify the other things you want to add.

A basketball is not just orange, it is also round. That means "a basketball is orange" is a true and valid statement.

So, we agree that "did not begin because of something else" is a valid property. I call that "uncaused".

 

[Eloy Craft]

Can you say that in another way, so I won't have to guess what you mean?

I'm sorry, probably nothing. Of the multiple self sustaining existences none created any thing, so time wouldn't exist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, if I get you correctly, you are suggesting that if there are multiple self-existing things, and if they don't interact, time wouldn't exist. I agree, if ALL of them are causing nothing.

{Yet even then, they are all under one umbrella principle —the existence of all of them. Which, at least to first cause, is then impossible, for their existence is existence apart from the causation of first cause, which is impossible, because there is no principle external to first cause by which first cause must be affected —in this case, the existence of external existences, when he is the first cause of the principle of existence itself.

So, if there is first cause, (and we should agree there is, or we would not exist), there cannot be multiple self-existences.

I had at one point thought that @Ken-1122 was claiming there could be multiple self-existent things that did not have any effects, but I found out he was saying there could be multiple self-existent things that do have interactions with each other and effects. Thus, if there are effects, there is cause, and first cause (to me logically) is necessarily implied.}



But in writing this, I'm beginning to see what you are getting at, which applies to @Moral Orel 's claim that multiple self-existences had no beginning (which he defines as past tense only), and to this you are saying his definition is meaningless, unless at least one of them causes time. Nice.

 

[Moral Orel]

But in writing this, I'm beginning to see what you are getting at, which applies to @Moral Orel 's claim that multiple self-existences had no beginning (which he defines as past tense only), and to this you are saying his definition is meaningless, unless at least one of them causes time. Nice.

I made no such claim.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I made no such claim.

Pardon me. IF there are multiple self-existent things, they had no beginning, (past tense). —that was the claim. No?

 

[Moral Orel]

Pardon me. IF there are multiple self-existent things, they had no beginning, (past tense). —that was the claim. No?

Nope. I have explicitly excluded your "self-existent" terminology from my claim.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nope. I have explicitly excluded your "self-existent" terminology from my claim.

I guess I'll have to review. I don't know what you are even talking about at this point.

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess I'll have to review. I don't know what you are even talking about at this point.

Don't bother.

 

[Ken-1122]

I had at one point thought that @Ken-1122 was claiming there could be multiple self-existent things that did not have any effects, but I found out he was saying there could be multiple self-existent things that do have interactions with each other and effects. Thus, if there are effects, there is cause, and first cause (to me logically) is necessarily implied.}

Actually I believe both are possible. If we assume the scientific Law of Thermodynamics is true, (nothing created nor destroyed but only changes forms) that would mean everything currently in existence has always been in existence.

 

[Ken-1122]

Pardon me. IF there are multiple self-existent things, they had no beginning, (past tense). —that was the claim. No?

That possibility is my claim.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually I believe both are possible. If we assume the scientific Law of Thermodynamics is true, (nothing created nor destroyed but only changes forms) that would mean everything currently in existence has always been in existence.

Or, every thing that is, exists at the pleasure of something that (someone who) sustains its very being. Or, don't we say that 'particles pop in and out of existence'?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That possibility is my claim.

I add to that, that such things must, by definition, exist at present self-existent. The word does not just imply they had not beginning, but that they depend on nothing outside themselves for continued existence.

 

[Ken-1122]

I add to that, that such things must, by definition, exist at present self-existent. The word does not just imply they had not beginning, but that they depend on nothing outside themselves for continued existence.

I wouldn't go that far, I think it is also possible for multiple things to have always existed, each interacting with each other eternally.

 

[partinobodycular]

I wouldn't go that far, I think it is also possible for multiple things to have always existed, each interacting with each other eternally.

What characteristics do these two things possess such that we might differentiate between them?

What characteristic does one possess that the other doesn't?

Are they spatially separated?