1
   

Does everything that exists cause everything that exists?

 
 
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2011 05:08 pm
A thing X is a sufficient cause of a thing Y if and only if X exists implies Y exists. A thing X is a necessary cause of a thing Y if and only if Y exists implies X exists. These definitions are commonly accepted.

Now, suppose things H and J exist. Then H exists implies J exists since hypothesis and conclusion are true. So, H is a sufficient cause of J by definition. Also, J exists implies H exists since hypothesis and conclusion are true. So, H is a necessary cause of J by definition. Using conjunction introduction, H is a necessary and sufficient cause of J. This proves that anything that exists is a necessary and sufficient cause of anything that exists.

Is this true? If not, find the flaw in the argument. What do you think about this?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,699 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2011 05:14 pm
@browser32,
browser32 wrote:

Now, suppose things H and J exist. Then H exists implies J exists since hypothesis and conclusion are true.


Illogical conclusion, incompatible with your own construct.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2011 11:47 pm
@browser32,
...either you change the definition of exist or you change the definition of cause...the general idea is good the terms chosen are n´t !
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2011 02:00 am
@browser32,
browser32 wrote:

What do you think about this?


I think you are trying to determine just exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a common pin.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2011 07:12 am
@browser32,
browser32 wrote:

A thing X is a sufficient cause of a thing Y if and only if X exists implies Y exists. A thing X is a necessary cause of a thing Y if and only if Y exists implies X exists. These definitions are commonly accepted.

Now, suppose things H and J exist. Then H exists implies J exists since hypothesis and conclusion are true. So, H is a sufficient cause of J by definition. Also, J exists implies H exists since hypothesis and conclusion are true. So, H is a necessary cause of J by definition. Using conjunction introduction, H is a necessary and sufficient cause of J. This proves that anything that exists is a necessary and sufficient cause of anything that exists.

Is this true? If not, find the flaw in the argument. What do you think about this?


False. Although sufficient and necessary conditions are indeed true, we still need to discern whether or not H implies J for sufficient conditions, or vice versa for necessary conditions. You have the logical form down, and I would agree with you on this, but that does not mean that we can take two arbitrary existents and say, "Well since so-and-so exists and another so-and-so exists, they are both necessary and sufficient for each other". You are confusing logic with experience. Think about it.
0 Replies
 
 

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. » Does everything that exists cause everything that exists?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 03:34:58