[Ham, reconctructed] >1) If a particle is [not] a figment of your mind, it must come into > existence. >2) If it exists in your mind, then you must have come into > existence in order to possess a mind. >3) A particle is either a figment of your mind or is not. > 4) :. In either case, whatever exists has to be and being (at least in the > finite sense that we experience > it) cannot arise from nothing. > That's the logic of 'ex nihilo, nihil fit".
If that's the logic, it is invalid. The valid conclusion would be 4') A particle (that exists) must come into existence. 4'), however, is not at issue. [Ham] > (a) Everything in existence comes into being at some point in time. (b) If it > all starts with a Big Bang, > something had to produce the bang. (a) = 4') &, again, is not at issue. (b), however, is self-contradictory. If it all starts with a Big Bang, then there can't be something that produces the bang: otherwise, it would start with that something. What are the possibilities: I) Everything that exists has existed since the beginning of time or was created from something that did. II) Some things come into existence after others but are not created from them. III) Some things are created, but not from other things. [Craig, previously] > But what if you have something that you can't find what it was created from? > Will you take that as a > counter-example or will you insist that there must be a source as yet > undiscovered (& on what basis)? [Ham] > What is your "counter-example"? Something that you can't find what it was created from? Craig Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
