That is an interesting post. I've never thought about it that way before. But is there necessarily a contradiction in existence being evil? I usually think of "is" and "ought" as being separate, so there wouldn't seem to be a contradiction in this case for existence to be evil. However, if "objective" as you're talking about it means that there is an "ought" which is necessarily also an "is", then I suppose there can be an inherent contradiction. If I'm understanding it right, then maybe you have to more clearly define what "objective" means for the proof to hold.

Like if there were a mathematical proof "A" that proof "A" does not exist, then I agree that would be a contradiction. But if there isn't necessarily any correlation between existence and goodness, then I don't think it follows that if a mathematical proof of goodness could exist, that that proof would necessarily be good.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean because you throw out all these terms and I don't know what the terms mean. I had to look up, "Res ipsa loquitur", for instance. And throwing out those terms isn't really an argument unless the person you're speaking to already understands exactly what you mean by those terms, and they understand how you mean to apply them.

The member to whom I replied knows what all those terms mean.

A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Because it is presupposed. And a good and useful presupposition it is, too. And of course because presupposed, logically necessary for any system in which it is presupposed. But is that the way the world works? And it seems to be for our local ordinary world. But if we stretch into into areas governed by either quantum mechanics or gen. relativity, it's all not quite so simple. — tim wood

Feel free to make your comment in that post so we don't distract from the OP. Long story short, yes, its still logically necessary.

A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Maybe in metaphyasics but not for modern fundamental physics — 180 Proof

If you are noting that no first cause has been discovered or proven in physics, I agree 100%

That is an interesting post. I've never thought about it that way before. But is there necessarily a contradiction in existence being evil? — Brendan Golledge

No, because the initial point is that existence vs nothing is good. So inherently there is some good to existence. When breaking existence down into 'parts' or existences, we can find that some existences are better than others in their interactions. Whatever interaction creates more existence is better, while interactions that lower overall existence are worse.

As a very basic example, a small explosive to open up a mine allows access to ore for commerce and improved human life. A large explosive that destroys the entire Earth is evil as is erases all the potential and actual existence of life. But its best if we discuss the specifics in the article itself so you get the full idea and don't distract from the other conversations here.

Therefore, there are only 3 choices:
1. There exists a cause without a cause
2. There is an infinite regression of causes with no beginning
3. Causality is circular (maybe like someone going back in a time machine to start the big bang) — Brendan Golledge

Deism is a philosophical axiom, not a religion. However, probably due to its religious associations and implications, several posters take issue with your first choice : an uncaused, hence eternally existing, general power of causation or generator of change*1. For them, a space-time limit on philosophical Causation is not self-evident. But Entropy does place an ultimate limit on physical Causation.

Some philosophers are content with the First Cause/Prime Mover hypothesis of empirical astronomical Cosmology : an ex nihilo Big Bang with no known or knowable precedent. Others, like David Hume, don't take Causation for granted, but conclude that it is an artificial concept. And some don't consider Causation to be a concern : things just happen for no apparent reason. So, don't bother reasoning with them, since they don't accept your Axioms.

And don't bother reasoning with . As he said, "The member to whom I replied knows what all those terms mean." For example, "Res ipsa loquitur, coming from him, simply means "you're an idiot". As you noted, he doesn't make rational arguments, just ridiculing accusations. Since he doesn't agree with your Axioms*2, anything you say will be absurd nonsense to him.

And don't assume that Common Sense has any special validity on this forum. Philosophers can logic chop*3 any concept into infinite bits of non-sense. For example, in Set Theory, the Axiom of Choice*4 says that you can take one element of an old Set and construct a new Set, "even if the collection is infinite". So, when a thread reaches a point where the points are near infinite, its time to bail out. Or to limit your responses to those who seem to be on the same page.

There are a few posters on TPF who are willing to civilly discuss plausible, but debatable philosophical concepts like "First Cause" or "Deity" without resorting to political (us vs them) debates and supercilious Troll taunts. Dialog but don't debate. :smile:


*1. What is the meaning of uncaused first cause?
But remember that in this argument, “first cause” just. means “uncaused cause” - or, “something which causes other things to exist but was not itself caused to exist.” And there appears to be no contradiction in the idea of there being more than one uncaused cause.
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Note___ The statement in bold does violate the principle of Occam's Razor. A single Cause of the Big Bang should be sufficient. "Uncaused" implies self-existent, and some assume as an axiom that the hypothetical Multiverse is self-existent.

*2. Plausibility of Infinity and Transcendence :
Anything outside the set of Space-Time is philosophically conceivable, but scientifically non-empirical.

*3. Logic Chopping :
(fallacy)
Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com › logicalfallacies

*4. Axiom of Choice :
Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of sets, each containing at least one element, it is possible to construct a new set by choosing one element from each set, even if the collection is infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

As you noted, he doesn't make rational arguments — Gnomon

And once again, like Trump, your accusation is a confession, Gnomon. :eyes: :sweat: