GENIUS FORUMS

* Rain falling heavily for days can cause a flood. The rain is a cause, not a reason. A cause is a reason. If a flood is caused by rainfall, the reason it flooded is because of the rainfall. They're not the same, psychoactive. Consider it from this angle. If an explanation, or reason, isn't establi...

psychoactive states: contingent existence = existence that is dependent on to exist i.e. its existence is caused. Contingent is an uncertainty until the Cause for it to be is established from a certainty. Existence is, it is not contingent to anything known by man. Man does not know what existence ...

psychoactive: psychoactive: This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists. Bo1: Who just said that it was not refuted? What just said I...

Definition of what? Is it the definition of the objective object, or the definition of the subjective assumption of uncertainty? It really doesn't matter though because you have not gave a definition of the Cause for intrisic existence nor contingent existence. You have totall, totally, totally not...

psychoactive: This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists. Bo1: Who just said that it was not refuted? What just said I may not exist...

jufa wrote:

psychoactive wrote: intrinsic existence doesn't have a cause, contingent existence does.

So give me evidence why intrinsic existence does not have a cause, and contingent existence does

Definition.

psychoactive: Beingof1: The first principle is - I experience or I AM. psychoactive: I see no need for the existence of "I." Who sees no need? This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this ...

Kelly Jones wrote: * Rain falling heavily for days can cause a flood. The rain is a cause, not a reason.

A cause is a reason.

If a flood is caused by rainfall, the reason it flooded is because of the rainfall.

Antecedent means "before". As in "anteroom" (like a lobby), antenatal, or "ante meridian" (A.M., morning). Presuming you know this, it sounds like you believe your mother's existence required your existence first, or at least simultaneously. Or that you existed before ...

So then when I say what is the cause for the first principle of identity, or for the existence of A, I am asking for the cause of things which do not intrinsically exist? If this is true, then you and Kelly are the one attempting to apply a cause to that which does not intrinsically exist. intrinsi...

jufa wrote:Why is existence?

There couldn't not be existence

There isn't a cause for existence for there isn't anything outside of existence for existence to come from.

Beingof1 wrote:The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

I see no need for the existence of "I."

There is existence.

I am doubtful of any extension from this.

Beingof1 wrote:Notice the big zero?

no..?

How are you figuring "I am" is a necessary element?

I'm not sure what your trying to say, the first principle is just a term, there is existence, can we not logically extrapolate from this fundamental state?

I have been trying to logically progress from a first principle, however it is proving exceedingly difficult. I was wondering if anyone has been able to do so, and if so, what their process looks like.

DQ: If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other. pa: But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case? DQ: I'm no...

If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other. But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case? I'm not sure I'm f...

David Quinn wrote: If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.
-

But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case?

David Quinn wrote:Given that a thing can only come from what is not itself, where else can the present come from but from what is not itself?

Can you elaborate on this? at face it looks like an infinite regress.

Not quite sure of what manner to approach this in.

A form of the Infinite.

A technical response seems unsavory.

One of my issues with this type of thought is life. The idea of cause and effect works very well when objects don't introduce their own locomotion into the system. A leaf follows the flow of water; using hydrodynamics one could predict its eventual resting place. But, fish with their limited brains...

Glostik91 wrote:Why do people have this emotional need?

For if it exists, how could it not?

implying we can be not ourself?

"What is the meaning of life?"

This question is established on a phantom postulation, there is no intrinsic "meaning" of "life."