Logical Extension from the First Principle

[psychoactive]

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

[Dennis Mahar]

jufa, can you give us the cause of God, that may help.

[jufa]

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

So then tell me what is existence, and not the living within existence?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

jufa, can you give us the cause of God, that may help.

Only if you can straighten up your question and tell me what God is, and what God is not.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

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

So then tell me what is existence,

I've done so. Existence is the totality of all things. Things exist by definition.

Please! identify the Cause of the principle of identity.

The principle of identity (A=A) only exists if if someone thinks of it. It doesn't exist in any other way.

Therefore, just as a thought is caused, so is the principle of identity.

But, if you are asking for a principle from which A=A can be derived, that's meaningless, because A=A isn't derived from any prior principle.



.

[Dennis Mahar]

Jufa, is this where you're at:


1) The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.
2) Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
3) Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.
4) This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.
5) This cause is not a contingently existing cause.
6) Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].

God is attributed of Will, Power, Knowledge.

We have to be mindful of the 'dread of nothing'.

[Kelly Jones]

If there is no beginning, there is no middle, and there is no end for there is nothing. And being

there is no first cause

, as you have stated, there can be no

boundary for a thing, or a cause, between itself and what is not itself, gives it existence.

This means A, or the first principle of identity has no cause of existence as you have stated:

there is no first cause.

You're not quite getting it. The truth of causation is used if one considers there to be things intrinsically existing. It's a very important truth to think about, if one doesn't quite understand that the boundaries drawn between things is a projection of the conceptualising mind.

Once a person realises, on this level of exploring the truth of causation, that there is no beginning or end to causal processes, then they start to perceive that causation is one ongoing single process. It is one "entity", if you like. At that point, the belief in intrinsic existence dissolves.

Knowing that things don't intrinsically exist depends on recognising causation as what it is. Namely, that the single ongoing process of causation is what it is. That requires the use of the law of identity, A=A.

So, the first principle takes its nature at that point from the realisation that nothing intrinsically exists. Being a finite thing (a concept), the understander recognises that A=A doesn't intrinsically exist, and so would not ask the question you continue to ask me.



.

[Kelly Jones]

That's fair enough. The only quibble I'd make, and it's a teensy one, is that the law or principle of identity isn't its own reason. It doesn't need any such thing. Just sounds anthropomorphic.

When I say that the Principle of Identity is its own reason, I mean that its existence is dependent upon two subsidiary principles that inhere naturally within it, and which are its intrinsic causes; namely: the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle. These two subsidiary principles partake of an interdependent and complementary existence, which is to say that neither principle can exist on its own, and that the two complete one another in a higher principle – the Principle of Identity.

Thanks for explaining, Jehu. The two principles of the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle follow from the law of identity. Its existence doesn't depend on them, because they don't exist until it does (in the thinker's mind, of course). As explained below:

A=A (law of identity)


because A=A, therefore,

not-A <> A (law of non-contradiction)


and also because A=A, therefore,

(anything that is) not-A=not-A (law of excluded middle)


.

[Jehu]

Thanks for explaining, Jehu. The two principles of the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle follow from the law of identity. Its existence doesn't depend on them, because they don't exist until it does (in the thinker's mind, of course).

Consider the ramifications of such a relationship, especially from a causal standpoint.

First, a cause cannot exist without an effect, for what then would it be the cause of, and how would we distinguish it from that which was not a cause, if not by its relationship to an effect; and the same is true of an effect. A cause then cannot exist antecedent to its effect having come into existence, nor an effect exist consequent to its causes having ceased to exist. Consequently, an effect and its causes must arise, persist and cease simultaneously. An effect then is nothing other than an amalgam of certain conditions that, upon their unification as an ‘entity’ (distinct existent), are then rightfully called the causes of that entity (effect). A molecule of water, for example, is nothing other that the coming together of hydrogen and oxygen atoms (its constitutive cause) and a binding energy (its operative cause); neither of which inhere naturally within the water molecule itself.

Now, there are only two ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (operative and constitutive), or it is dependent upon extrinsic causes; there being no intermediate alternative. The Principle of Identity, unlike the water molecule, is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, namely the Principle of Contradiction (constitutive cause) and the Principle of Excluded Middle (operative cause). Because its causes inhere naturally within itself, the POI is said to partake of an absolute (necessary) existence, for if its causes exist, then given that they are self-inhering, so to must the POI exist. Further, if such an entity does exist, then it must have always existed, and if it does not exist, then it can never come to exist in the future. Water molecules, and other such entities, may come in and out of existence, depending upon other conditions, and so partake of only a relative (contingent) existence.

So you see, just as the water molecule is dependent upon the hydrogen and oxygen atoms and the binding energy for its existence, the POI is dependent upon the POC and PEM for its existence. However, the water molecule and the POI partake of two different mode of existence, the latter being real (absolute), and the former, merely apparent (relative).

[jufa]

Jufa, is this where you're at:


1) The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.For what logical reason?
2) Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. What is the logical reason for the Cause?
3) Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.Again, what is the logical reason for the Cause to exist?
4) This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.You haven't defined the Cause for the existence, therefore you have not defined the logic for A to exist.
5) This cause is not a contingently existing cause. So what then is the Cause contingent too? Please give identification.
6) Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].So what is the logic for the existence for the

necessarily existent Being?

God is attributed of Will, Power, Knowledge.What God are you talking about, I display Will, Power, Knowledge.

We have to be mindful of the 'dread of nothing'. Tell me about the

'dread of nothing'

when nothing is not a reality.

[jufa]

Jehu, what you, Kelly and every one one else in this conversation has miss, and has always been in your face is: What is the logic for existence? There is no logic which the human mind can reach - which both of you have demonstrated by not giving a logical reason for existence to exist.

This is the gist of my proposition to you, one and all. If the Cause must have an Effect for existence, what is the logic for their existence to exist? Give me the logic for Cause, and give me the logic for Effect

Why is existence?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[psychoactive]

Why is existence?

There couldn't not be existence

[Kelly Jones]

A cause then cannot exist antecedent to its effect having come into existence,

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 or simultaneously with the Big Bang.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Jehu, what you, Kelly and every one one else in this conversation has miss, and has always been in your face is: What is the logic for existence? There is no logic which the human mind can reach - which both of you have demonstrated by not giving a logical reason for existence to exist.

I've explained to you already, as has psychoactive, and jehu, but you seem incapable of understanding. So, if you don't get it this time, stop asking. It's not our problem you cannot understand. It is your problem.

Again, (or perhaps, again-again-again):

1. Things do not exist for reasons. They are caused to exist. That's all. So forget the idea of "what is the logic for," or "what is the reason for", and substitute simply "what is the cause or causes for".

2. Existence means all causes. Absolutely all things = existence. Can you parse this definition?

Basically: All causes are included in existence.

Therefore, when you ask, "What causes existence?" you are assuming that there are some causes that are not included in existence.

Do you understand why the question is meaningless?

If not, it's not our problem. It's yours.


.

[jufa]

jehu wrote: You're not quite getting it. The truth of causation is used if one considers there to be things intrinsically existing.

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. The both of you then are beating a dead horse. Oh well, die hearts are die hearts are die hearts.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

Kelly wrote: 1. Things do not exist for reasons. They are caused to exist.

Now isn't that the most absurd statement given in the universe. Things are caused to exist, but there is no cause, or reason for their existence. Man on man, oh sorry, woman or woman of woman, this is a genius going backwards.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Jehu]

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 or simultaneously with the Big Bang.

Yes, well it might look that way, but that is because the distinction between a ‘cause’ and a ‘condition’ are not well understood. You see, there are vast numbers of conditions that play a role in the arising and continuation of any given effect, but that are not amalgamated into the effect itself, and so are not rightfully called its causes. In fact, since all things are interrelated, one could rightfully say that everything other than the effect itself may be considered a condition in its arising, whether the thing facilitates the effect’s arising or continuation, or merely fails to hinder it. Causes then are simply a special category of conditions, that is to say, conditions that are present within the effect itself, and apart from which there would be no effect.

This distinction is very important, for without it, the whole notion of causality becomes unintelligible.

[Jehu]

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. The both of you then are beating a dead horse. Oh well, die hearts are die hearts are die hearts.

Once again, the Principle of Identity, like all entities that partake of an absolute existence, is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and so does not require any extrinsic cause. That is to say, such an entity contains, within itself, that which is necessary and sufficient to its being the kind of thing that it is, and is therefore eternal and immutable. The same is true of Being itself.

[jufa]

Not talking about causes and conditions here Jehu, Kelly, talking about THE CAUSE. What is THE CAUSE for the existence of existence? What is THE CAUSE for the existence of causes, conditions, Antecedent, "anteroom", before they existed in as causes, conditions, Antecedent, "anteroom"? Can't answer this can you, so you just continue beating a dead horse.

On well, momma told me not to?????????????????????????????????????????????

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

jehu wrote: You're not quite getting it. The truth of causation is used if one considers there to be things intrinsically existing.

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. The both of you then are beating a dead horse. Oh well, die hearts are die hearts are die hearts.

I have the feeling that you don't read my posts.

Look several posts up above your comment, here.

By the way, it's "die hard". I take it English isn't your first language. This might account for the unusual communication difficulties.


.

[psychoactive]

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.

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

[Kelly Jones]

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 or simultaneously with the Big Bang.

Yes, well it might look that way, but that is because the distinction between a ‘cause’ and a ‘condition’ are not well understood. You see, there are vast numbers of conditions that play a role in the arising and continuation of any given effect, but that are not amalgamated into the effect itself, and so are not rightfully called its causes. In fact, since all things are interrelated, one could rightfully say that everything other than the effect itself may be considered a condition in its arising, whether the thing facilitates the effect’s arising or continuation, or merely fails to hinder it. Causes then are simply a special category of conditions, that is to say, conditions that are present within the effect itself, and apart from which there would be no effect.

This distinction is very important, for without it, the whole notion of causality becomes unintelligible.

I define a cause as what is necessary for the existence of something (where a thing is always finite, by definition).

"A condition is necessary for the existence of something" doesn't quite have the same ring.

But if you can cope with the definition of cause, as I have given it, you still cannot coherently say that you existed antecedent to the Big Bang. The reason is, it would contradict the idea of a cause being necessary for the existence of an effect, by positing the existence of the effect without that causal relationship.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Not talking about causes and conditions here Jehu, Kelly, talking about THE CAUSE. What is THE CAUSE for the existence of existence? What is THE CAUSE for the existence of causes, conditions, Antecedent, "anteroom", before they existed in as causes, conditions, Antecedent, "anteroom"? Can't answer this can you, so you just continue beating a dead horse.

Jufa, are you asking what causes causation?

If so, you are saying that all that can be identified as causation is not all of causation.

It's internally contradictory.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly wrote: 1. Things do not exist for reasons. They are caused to exist.

Now isn't that the most absurd statement given in the universe. Things are caused to exist, but there is no cause, or reason for their existence.

No, no, no.

Causes are not the same as reasons.

Here. I'll illustrate the difference between cause and reason for you:

* A cricket bat hitting a ball forcefully causes the ball to fly up through the air, before arcing downwards again. The cricket bat is a cause, but it is not a reason.
* Rain falling heavily for days can cause a flood. The rain is a cause, not a reason.
* A pelican beating its wings can cause it to lift off the ground. The building of air pressure is a cause for the bird's lift-off, not a reason.


* An explanatory line of logical thought is a reason.


.

[psychoactive]

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 or simultaneously with the Big Bang.

Yes, well it might look that way, but that is because the distinction between a ‘cause’ and a ‘condition’ are not well understood. You see, there are vast numbers of conditions that play a role in the arising and continuation of any given effect, but that are not amalgamated into the effect itself, and so are not rightfully called its causes. In fact, since all things are interrelated, one could rightfully say that everything other than the effect itself may be considered a condition in its arising, whether the thing facilitates the effect’s arising or continuation, or merely fails to hinder it. Causes then are simply a special category of conditions, that is to say, conditions that are present within the effect itself, and apart from which there would be no effect.

This distinction is very important, for without it, the whole notion of causality becomes unintelligible.

If a things existence is conditionally dependent, I see whatever these necessary conditions are as causing the things existence.

Conditions are a form of causes, or maybe, the only cause.

Are you perhaps restricting causality to temporality i.e. prior event A causes event B?