The Inglorious One wrote:Why must it be either/or, alpha?
alpha wrote:because of the law of no contradiction and the law of excluded middle (which i believe some dispute, such as leo). caused absolutely contradicts uncaused. this means that the same thing (a simple thing) can't be both caused and uncaused at the same time. it also can't be not caused, and not uncaused at the same time. so it must be one or the other.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you have your terms confused. Excluding the middle is a fallacy. A fallacy which you could be committing.
what do you mean "Excluding the middle is a fallacy"? the law of excluded middle is the third law of aristotle's fundamental laws of logic. perhaps you, like leo, reject this law? in which case, i'm speechless.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Because things are caused, does not follow that no things are uncaused.
i'm not basing my argument on observation, as you keep insisting.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is not inconceivable that some things come into existence spontaneously.
such a statement is not surprising, coming from someone who questions excluding the middle.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Science, in fact, seems to demand that the universe does just that.
if "science" does in fact demand this, then it's even stupider than i thought.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:And for centuries it was thought that mice spontaneously generated from rubbish heaps. In ancient Egypt from the cracks in the dried up mud of the Nile.
there even exist people today who think that god can do what is logically impossible, such as making 1+1=79, but that doesn't mean the law of no contradiction isn't an axiomatic and logical law.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Excluding the possibility that we live in a universe of causality in which some things come into being uncaused, is opinion.
it is your
self-contradicting opinion that randomness (causelessness) is possible.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is only a contradiction if you want to assert that the universe is exclusively deterministic.
logically, i have no choice but to make such an assertion. even leo claims to accept this, and denies the possibility of randomness. this means that the absurdity crown now goes to you.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Which I agree that for single items, such as a bird, a pencil or a universe it can only be one thing or the other: either caused or uncaused. There is nothing to suggest that some things appear from nowhere such as the Universe.
so you accept the law of excluded middle?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:We assert that everything has causes by induction, not logic.
you assert this by induction. many of us assert it by logic. again, you're still trying to force your version of science on everything. i'm sure we can both quote stuff from the internet (or appeal to authority) to support our respective views, so let's just agree to disagree on whether it's a logical or empirical assertion. the bottom line is, you either accept it's validity, or you don't. if you do, then stop debating irrelevant bloody details. if you don't, then that's a different story.