Is this premise true?

[I move my foot, point to it and say:] The movement of my foot is something which began to exist.

Is this correct? Is movement something that you can claim "begins to exist"? My foot was stationary. When I moved it, I brought something into existence. Prior to me moving it, that movement did not exist.

Sure. The mysterious language has to do with this statement being the basis of the kalam cosmological argument and a predicate for the next premise, being: everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

Sure. The mysterious language has to do with this statement being the basis of the kalam cosmological argument and a predicate for the next premise, being: everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

So I was wondering about this 'begins to exist' bit. Is the movement of my foot something that began to exist or is this simply a manipulation of language? Like, movement is not a 'thing' that comes into existence, merely a word to describe a changing of state i.e. from position A to position B.

Quote:

Sure. The mysterious language has to do with this statement being the basis of the kalam cosmological argument and a predicate for the next premise, being: everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

There is a problem with your logic. Because one thing has a cause before it exists doesn't mean all things have a cause.

Somethings clearly exist because of a cause. You exist because your parents had sex. It's clear without that cause or something similar you wouldn't exist.

However there are things that exist that can't be shown to exist because a specific cause. Why does a hydrogen atom exist? We can only offer speculation as to a cause but there is no evidence that there must be a cause for it to exist.

Does, "X begins to exist" just mean, "X occurs"? If not, what does it mean?

kennethamy wrote:

Does, "X begins to exist" just mean, "X occurs"? If not, what does it mean?

That's what it boils down to I guess. I'm not entirely sure what it means but I suspect the person who proposed it was trying to get around the problem that anything that comes into existence in the universe is simply a change in state of matter. It's not clear that you can prove that matter began to exist so to avoid this, motion or movement was used as a substitute. "Begins to exist" sounded a little funny to me.

Hi

Nothing exists without cause.

Mark...

I assure you, everything has a cause, and everything has an effect.
Why? Because it does.

Hi Ken!

You know better than to fall into my traps.

A quantum physicist cannot see, design or do anything at the quantum level with any degree of absolute certainty, because they are incapable of entering into the actual realm of the atomic nucleus.

What is below the scale of use, is unimportant to them. Governments fund them for results in areas that do not require any further, deeper research.

"This atom does this and produces that... Why? Because it does."
"What is the purpose of the atom? That's not important...go away."
Common Q%A's

That is why it is still classified as 'theoretical'.

I assure you, everything has a cause, and everything has an effect.
Why? Because it does.

Kind regards!
mark...

Hi Parados!

I completely agree. My assurance means nothing to anyone but myself.
I simply accept what I believe to be in this instance.

Something cannot arise from nothing. And nothing doesn't exist.

Kind regards!
mark...