Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What did it all started with?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The happy Objectivist" data-source="post: 75944614" data-attributes="member: 429069"><p>Scientific laws are conceptual in nature and so yes they do require someone to create those conceptual integrations. Human beings have the capability to form conceptual integrations. Scientific laws are universal generalizations. They are the product of induction which Humans have the ability to do. The facts which these generalizations identify are not creations. They are inherent in nature, nature being the realm of things acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities. </p><p></p><p>As far as existence needing a cause, this statement commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. The principle of causality presupposes something that acts. In order for something to act it must first exist. Therefore as soon as you propose a cause you are proposing existence. In other words, causality presupposes existence and not the other way around. </p><p></p><p>The type of action a thing can perform is determined by the nature or identity of the thing that acts. Therefore the first cause is existence itself since existence and identity are one and the same. To exist is to be something specific, to have an identity and to have an identity is to exist. You could never say that something exists but it has no identity and you could never say that something has identity but it doesn't exist. There is a 100% concurrence of identity and existence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The happy Objectivist, post: 75944614, member: 429069"] Scientific laws are conceptual in nature and so yes they do require someone to create those conceptual integrations. Human beings have the capability to form conceptual integrations. Scientific laws are universal generalizations. They are the product of induction which Humans have the ability to do. The facts which these generalizations identify are not creations. They are inherent in nature, nature being the realm of things acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities. As far as existence needing a cause, this statement commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. The principle of causality presupposes something that acts. In order for something to act it must first exist. Therefore as soon as you propose a cause you are proposing existence. In other words, causality presupposes existence and not the other way around. The type of action a thing can perform is determined by the nature or identity of the thing that acts. Therefore the first cause is existence itself since existence and identity are one and the same. To exist is to be something specific, to have an identity and to have an identity is to exist. You could never say that something exists but it has no identity and you could never say that something has identity but it doesn't exist. There is a 100% concurrence of identity and existence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What did it all started with?
Top
Bottom