MrIntelligentDesign
Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
|
| Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:24) | [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:09]
Then you are incredibly mistaken.
Existence is uncaused.
If not, then you have something that does not exist but which has the ability to cause. This is not merely incoherent, it is contradictory.
It is literally insane. Incoherent at best, but generally insane.
There is no explanation possible for existence as such.
There is no explanation needed for existence as such.
Existence is simply an unavoidable brute fact.
Regardless of the presence of absence of a "universal pattern", existence is not a thing amongst things. It is not "an X".
Now, for any given thing that exists, there may or may not be a cause for its existence.
You have not supplied anything remotely resembling a universal principle for any existing thing whatsoever.
Worse, if you had, it would be useless. It would be so generalized as to provide no explanatory power. It would have no application, no use, not utility.
Nothing that we know about the cause of tides is informative for what we know about the cause of Scarlett O'Hara. And vice versa.
Nothing we know about the cause of Smallpox is of any use in determining the cause of pH.
Nothing we know about the cause of continental drift is of any use in determining the cause of oxidation-reduction reactions. |
Huh??? You said that "...Existence is uncaused." How do you know? That is not only an assertion but a conclusion!
How do you know?
Now, let us smash that conclusion.
Existence is uncaused. OK, I got it.
X is an existence.
X is PC, then, X has no cause and had just popped up by itself!
LOL!!
WTF! Is that science??
Oh my goodness! Oh Darwin, f--k you! What had you done to your supporters! You messed their minds!
|
