Greetings Ham, In the past, I've asked you for your argument, but you responded with a list of reputable philosophers and a linage of thought. I thought this the perfect opportunity to challenge your eluded to argument. It has problems. That 'A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.' is what you think, not what you know. So no, your further explanation does not make your assumption of a "primary source" more compelling. Both science and logic are useful tools. Science sometimes seems a beautiful garden of ideas, but both science and logic are rooted in assumptions beyond our ability to know. Individuals are too much a part of reality to ever properly define it in total, as a whole. As I have stated a thousand times, the best that can be said, as RMP does, is Quality (Reality) is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known". Your "Primary" and "purpose" is stating too much. I find no compelling reason to adopted your assumptions.
To call those who do not agree with your assumptions concerning the source and purpose of Reality nihilists is nonsense. Marsha At 01:22 AM 12/6/2007, you wrote: >Hi Marsha -- > > > > > To your argument and my not being compelled by that argument: > > > > Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument > > can be stated as follows: > > > > 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. > > 2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. > > 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. > > 4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be > > something that is not an effect.... > >Marsha, this is a reasonable argument which would be more logical if the >major premise (3) is stated as #1. The entire argument for a first cause is >predicated on the fact that "a causal chain cannot be of infinite length." >This is true because if there is no beginning to the chain, we would have an >infinite regression of prior causes. Having stated that premise, however, >your article goes on to say "...that an infinite regression of causes is in >fact possible." While one may of course believe that anything is possible, >such a conclusion is a logical fallacy. > >If you consider a causal effect as a "contingency", there is a point in time >in which an event occurs that is not contingent upon a prior event. Coming >into being is such an event, whether it is defined as the beginning of >existence, the beginning of individual awareness, or actualized existence. > >The article also mentions the cosmology of Thomas Aquinas which is based on >"contingency" rather than "cause". (This concept was subsequently >developed by Nicholas of Cusa as the "coincidence of opposites" which >defines his First Principle.) In my opinion, Aquinas presents a more >persuasive argument by allowing for contradiction -- specifically, the >difference between what exists in actuality and what has the potentiality to >exist: > >"Aquinas' argument from contingency is distinct from a first-cause argument >(because it assumes the possibility of a universe that had no beginning in >time), but is instead a form of argument from 'universal causation'. He >observed that in nature there are things whose existence is contingent, that >is, possible for it to be or not to be. Since it is possible for such >things not to exist, there must be some time at which such things did not in >fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when >nothing existed. If that is so, there would exist nothing that could bring >anything into existence. Thus contingent beings are insufficient to account >for the existence of contingent beings, meaning there must exist a Necessary >Being for which it is impossible not to exist, and from which the existence >of all contingent beings is derived." > >The only statement I find illogical about this argument is the concluding >statement: "there must exist a Necessary Being for which it is impossible >not to exist." The primary source of existence is not itself an "existent" >or a "being", since it necessarily transcends finite existence. Instead, as >Cusanus theorized, it represents the "coincidence of opposition", which is >perhaps best expressed as the absolute potentiality of what is actualized as >finite beingness. It's what I call Essence. > >Thanks for the Wikipedia reference, Marsha. Does it make the concept of a >primary source any more compelling? > >Essentially yours, >Ham 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/
