Thread: Start with Nothing

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Can the law of non-contradiction justify itself? It is the basic axiom of arithmetic (well one of them is a+0=a which is pretty similar) and logic but can it justify itself without resulting in a contradiction or having to create more axioms?

I agree that problems arise when you try to justify logic with logic. That might pose a problem to my argument, but no more than it does to any other argument.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

P2 is a logical fact? The proposition “everything has a cause” can only be inferred by empirical observation not pure reason, remember the Hume discussion? However experience cannot justify causality either. If the proposition “Anything that exists has some first cause” is valid, then that cause would be something that existed to cause “anything” and would therefore be included in the set of “things that exist and are therefore caused”. The argument is subject to a regress.

I'll further explain P2. The premise isn't that "everything has a cause". In fact what I'm saying is in some sense the opposite. I am saying that you can trace every cause back to something that was uncaused. That has to be true. The only other conceivable option is an infinite regression of causes. But even then, that infinite sequence of causes would be something that exists and is uncaused.

I don't think it's so difficult to conceptualize that we can't meaningfully talk about it. If I can think about it, we should be able to talk about it. But I agree that we have to be careful.

I've been getting frustrated in the last page or so and am playing my part in arguing, but I'm not "mad at you" or anything. I was getting 'irritated' in the context of the argument at Wayfaerer, tommo and Darkmatters too, and I think you four happen to be my favourite people on this site... which now that I think about it is kind of an odd coincidence.