0
   

Is this premise true?

 
 
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 04:16 am
[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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,761 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 06:35 am
@josh0335,
josh0335 wrote:

[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.


In English we would say just, "My foot began to move" Before I moved it, my foot did not move. Isn't that what you want to say (without the mysterious language)?
josh0335
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 07:23 am
@kennethamy,
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.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 07:31 am
@josh0335,
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.
josh0335
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 07:38 am
@parados,
Am I to understand from your comment that you concede that the initial premise I presented is true? Never mind whether I can make a universal judgement from it or not.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 07:53 am
@josh0335,
josh0335 wrote:

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.




Does, "X begins to exist" just mean, "X occurs"? If not, what does it mean? To talk about X's "beginning to exist" is to talk as if existence were an event of some kind with a start and an end. But existence is not an event. To say that World War 2 began to exist in 1939, and ended it existence in 1945 is only to say that the war began in 1939 and lasted to 1945. The term "exist" just drops out.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 07:55 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.


How could something have a cause before it exists? It does not exist to have a cause.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 08:29 am
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 08:45 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.


There are two different questions often confused with one another.

1. Does every event have a cause?
2. Must every event have a cause?

The answer to 1. may be, yes. But that does not mean that the answer to 2. is also yes. But if the answer to 1. is no, then the answer to 2. must also be no.

According to most (if not, all) quantum scientists, at least some micro-events (quantum jumps) have no causes. I know not merely next to nothing about quantum physics but nothing at all. However, I am willing to listen to experts in the field. And, if they are right, then the answer to 1. is no. Therefore, the answer to 2. is, no.
0 Replies
 
josh0335
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 08:47 am
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 09:17 am
@josh0335,
josh0335 wrote:

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.


Well, one girl who was angry with me (for some silly reason) once said to me, "you don't even begin to exist for me!". But apart from that, it is only a phrase in philosophese, which is some obscure language philosophers use when they are muddled.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 09:43 am
Hi

Nothing exists without cause.

Mark...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 09:46 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi

Nothing exists without cause.

Mark...


Well, if you say so. But quantum physicists don't agree with you. But, so what?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:38 am
@kennethamy,
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...
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:42 am
@mark noble,
Quote:

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

But that is just theoretical on your part mark since you can't show it with any degree of absolute certainty.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:43 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

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...


As I said, if you say so. And who are the experts to disagree with you? But I am comforted by your assurance. I agree, however, that every it must be that every effect has a cause, since unless it had a cause, it could not be an effect. Of course that truth does not help much with answering the question, is every event an effect. But your assurance has helped. Thank you. Be sure to let quantum physicists know of your assurance too.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:03 am
@parados,
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...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:06 am
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

They asked me to go away - moreso after one of their own agreed with me.

Mark...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:27 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

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...


Well, that is certainly false. I happen just to have completely emptied my sock drawer, and I assure you that there is nothing in the drawer.

Do you happen to have an argument for the conclusion that something cannot arise from nothing, or must I just accept it on your assurance that it is true?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:33 am
@kennethamy,
Speaking of sock drawers - I think there is adequate proof that nothing can arrive out of something when it comes to socks and dryers.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is this premise true?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 06:25:01