sorry for disturbing you almighty god, but us mortals who dont know the answers to the universe were trying to talk about existence. go back to sleep if it bothers you. peace.
You weren't talking about existence. You were attempting to discuss ontology... but in a completely illogical and fallacious, highly- question-begging manner.
and that has nothing to do with existence? and what was illogical about what i said? want to quote all the illogical statements? peace.
It does.. and so what? The two are not mutually exhaustive; nor are they equivalent. All of them? Sorry.. it would take too long. Here's the worst: The illicit assumption of infinite necessarily implies existence. That is an indeterminable premiss, used to establish that which you seek to support, which is of course, question-begging circularity. QED
so then you explain to me how to break the cause and effect law while still making sense. or let me guess your going to cop out like most people do and say, "the cause and effect law didnt apply before existence" peace.
??? There's no onus upon me to explain how to break any 'law' (not that there is such a thing, as proved by Hume). I am not the one attempting to support a position here. What's more, as usual, it is you who are 'copping out'. When faced with an error in one's argument, it is that person's argument that needs be amended. As to the 'cop-out' itself, do note how the fragment "before existence" is contradictory. That in itself might help you out.
Indeed... as has been proven by Hume, as I noted. And I do applaud your desire to understand. Not at all. If you choose to argue, it is you who must learn to correct your arguments. That is the very nature of discussion. And this is where you fail. Do you not see how this means that you've already made up your mind as to what's at question? Given this, there is no point in you trying to discuss. Ergo, you cannot grow in understanding. No. The I'll hint in a stronger fashion: the contradiction necessitates that one of the elements cannot be correct.
Wrong. We witness no such thing. You've simply been trained to call it cause and effect. Again, you're playing safe, and not challenging yourself. You're unfamiliar with say, Southern Baptists???? Incorrect. I've already proven how you went wrong. It is up to you to correct your illogical 'argument' (sic). Incorrect. Unlike you, I made no claim to a position of belief. I have made no display here whatsoever as to my position on the matter. If, in any way, I have made up my mind, it would be that the question is moot. Because, as I've already pointed out, two times now, cause and effect is not real; it is merely an inductive relation we have constructed. As Hume put it, constant conjunction of concurrent events. It seems you are unfamiliar with the classic fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you wish to develop your philosophical growth, it is imperative that you familiarize your mind with standard logic, to say nothing of classical arguments. You tell me which one you think to be incorrect.
Every effect has a cause. they are part of the same idea. But does every event have a cause? Doesn't quantum theory mean that particles are going in and out of existence all the time, and jumping from state to state for no apparent reason? Playing with dice as Einstein put it.
Why does anything exist? Because we believe things exist out of necessity. The necessity being maintaining relationships with things in order to validate our seemingly being . This necessity is probably what is directly responsible for things existing because in order to have things to percieve, apprehend or relate to, we have to a world to view. So we believe in things to make our world out of. I think too, that imagination is somehow the true source.
Possibly anything exists because it is an aspect of nothingness. The state of nothingness is a preferred state because it requires no explanation. Matter, space, time (what have you) are aspects of nothingness requiring no explanation. This is because nothingness itself is something creating everything we see. As nothingness is the preferred state and should exist - it probably does exist - we just fail to perceive matter et cetera as the nothingness it really is.
no i got that notion from einstein actualy, he was the one who i quoted about how our imagination is the most powerful thing. peace.
Lets examine that statement for a bit. If I say "there is a borg on my window" then that is false. If I say "there is not a borg on my window" then that is not false. Clearly, having proved that one is false, it's negative is not false.