what pure logical tautologies can deduce

[SYZ]

...Your right nothing neither causes nor requires a cause.

I missed a step though;

nothing causes nothing; (1) nothing has no cause, (2) nothing doesn't cause anything, (3) something causes everything

3 is a contraposition of 2

the negation of "nothing" is "something"

the negation of "doesn't cause anything" is "causes everything"

therefore the contraposition of "nothing doesn't cause anything" is "something causes everything"

   What sort of bullshit is this may I ask?    

[Mancunian]

...Your right nothing neither causes nor requires a cause.

I missed a step though;

nothing causes nothing; (1) nothing has no cause, (2) nothing doesn't cause anything, (3) something causes everything

3 is a contraposition of 2

the negation of "nothing" is "something"

the negation of "doesn't cause anything" is "causes everything"

therefore the contraposition of "nothing doesn't cause anything" is "something causes everything"

   What sort of bullshit is this may I ask?    

The type of bullshit that jumps from an all powerful creator to Jehovah in a few easy steps.

[brewerb]

...Your right nothing neither causes nor requires a cause.

I missed a step though;

nothing causes nothing; (1) nothing has no cause, (2) nothing doesn't cause anything, (3) something causes everything

3 is a contraposition of 2

the negation of "nothing" is "something"

the negation of "doesn't cause anything" is "causes everything"

therefore the contraposition of "nothing doesn't cause anything" is "something causes everything"

   What sort of bullshit is this may I ask?    

It is what it is.

[HumbleBeauty]

Your right nothing neither causes nor requires a cause.

I missed a step though;

nothing causes nothing; (1) nothing has no cause, (2) nothing doesn't cause anything, (3) something causes everything

3 is a contraposition of 2

the negation of "nothing" is "something"

the negation of "doesn't cause anything" is "causes everything"

therefore the contraposition of "nothing doesn't cause anything" is "something causes everything"

Your second negation is in error. The negation of "doesn't cause anything" is simply "does cause anything". So, your contraposition gets you "something causes anything." Amazing, you've conclusively demonstrated that the universe contains at least one instance of causality. 

remember where it came from;

nothing "causes nothing"

nothing "doesn't cause anything"

therefore;

"causes nothing" equals "doesn't cause anything"


what is the negation of "causes nothing"?

[brewerb]

What goes around comes around. 

[Paleophyte]

Your second negation is in error. The negation of "doesn't cause anything" is simply "does cause anything". So, your contraposition gets you "something causes anything." Amazing, you've conclusively demonstrated that the universe contains at least one instance of causality. 

remember where it came from;

nothing "causes nothing"

nothing "doesn't cause anything"

therefore;

"causes nothing" equals "doesn't cause anything"


what is the negation of "causes nothing"?

That's what I'm doing, remembering where it came from. How much nothing have you observed? Your "logic" is eating its own tail and feeling smart about its discount dining choices. The statement "nothing causes nothing" is an abuse of words.

[Dānu]

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

[Cavebear]

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

There is also "Never argue with stupid people, others might not notice the difference".

[Paleophyte]

[HumbleBeauty]

remember where it came from;

nothing "causes nothing"

nothing "doesn't cause anything"

therefore;

"causes nothing" equals "doesn't cause anything"


what is the negation of "causes nothing"?

That's what I'm doing, remembering where it came from. How much nothing have you observed? Your "logic" is eating its own tail and feeling smart about its discount dining choices. The statement "nothing causes nothing" is an abuse of words.

it's not an observational proof, is one based on pure reason.

but for an observation;

(1) fact; every cause involves energy

(2) conclusion from 1; energy is self-causal

(3) conclusion from 2, and fact; everything has a cause



btw, thank you for your correction, I removed "everything causes something" from the proof.

[Rhythmcs]

Everything? What is causes cause?

[Paleophyte]

That's what I'm doing, remembering where it came from. How much nothing have you observed? Your "logic" is eating its own tail and feeling smart about its discount dining choices. The statement "nothing causes nothing" is an abuse of words.

it's not an observational proof, is one based on pure reason.

but for an observation;

(1) fact; every cause involves energy

(2) conclusion from 1; energy is self-causal

(3) conclusion from 2, and fact; everything has a cause

btw, thank you for your correction, I removed "everything causes something" from the proof.

No, it isn't. You're talking about matter and energy. That's observational. You can call it pure reason, but you've got observations about the universe throughout.

Above, step 2 doesn't follow even if I grant you step 1. Energy can be "caused" by other energy. You'll ask "Well what caused that energy?" and we'll go down the rabbit hole of rearranging that energy into new and interesting patterns until we arrive at some initial condition and can go no further. This is what I mean by the root cause needing special treatment. Naturalism addresses the problem by saying, "I don't know, let's go poke it with a stick." Theism addresses it by slapping on a patch that's exempt from reason, calling it "god", and burning anybody who asks questions.

[HumbleBeauty]

it's not an observational proof, is one based on pure reason.

but for an observation;

(1) fact; every cause involves energy

(2) conclusion from 1; energy is self-causal

(3) conclusion from 2, and fact; everything has a cause

btw, thank you for your correction, I removed "everything causes something" from the proof.

No, it isn't. You're talking about matter and energy. That's observational. You can call it pure reason, but you've got observations about the universe throughout.

Above, step 2 doesn't follow even if I grant you step 1. Energy can be "caused" by other energy. You'll ask "Well what caused that energy?" and we'll go down the rabbit hole of rearranging that energy into new and interesting patterns until we arrive at some initial condition and can go no further. This is what I mean by the root cause needing special treatment. Naturalism addresses the problem by saying, "I don't know, let's go poke it with a stick." Theism addresses it by slapping on a patch that's exempt from reason, calling it "god", and burning anybody who asks questions.

What if the universe is cybernetic?

[brewerb]

^^^ Dodge

[Dānu]

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, it isn't. You're talking about matter and energy. That's observational. You can call it pure reason, but you've got observations about the universe throughout.

Above, step 2 doesn't follow even if I grant you step 1. Energy can be "caused" by other energy. You'll ask "Well what caused that energy?" and we'll go down the rabbit hole of rearranging that energy into new and interesting patterns until we arrive at some initial condition and can go no further. This is what I mean by the root cause needing special treatment. Naturalism addresses the problem by saying, "I don't know, let's go poke it with a stick." Theism addresses it by slapping on a patch that's exempt from reason, calling it "god", and burning anybody who asks questions.

What if the universe is cybernetic?

What if worms had machineguns?

(Birds wouldn't fuck with 'em.)

[Paleophyte]

No, it isn't. You're talking about matter and energy. That's observational. You can call it pure reason, but you've got observations about the universe throughout.

Above, step 2 doesn't follow even if I grant you step 1. Energy can be "caused" by other energy. You'll ask "Well what caused that energy?" and we'll go down the rabbit hole of rearranging that energy into new and interesting patterns until we arrive at some initial condition and can go no further. This is what I mean by the root cause needing special treatment. Naturalism addresses the problem by saying, "I don't know, let's go poke it with a stick." Theism addresses it by slapping on a patch that's exempt from reason, calling it "god", and burning anybody who asks questions.

What if the universe is cybernetic?

Unless you're talking movie magic with the T-1000, cybernetics doesn't travel back in time and cause itself. I have to admit, at least that god would be entertaining. Nothing that we've ever observed is self-causal, and everything that we know about causation tells us that the term is meaningless.

[SYZ]

What if the universe is cybernetic?

What if a troll repeatedly posted nonsensical rhetorical questions?

[HumbleBeauty]

What if the universe is cybernetic?

Unless you're talking movie magic with the T-1000, cybernetics doesn't travel back in time and cause itself. I have to admit, at least that god would be entertaining. Nothing that we've ever observed is self-causal, and everything that we know about causation tells us that the term is meaningless.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed

so energy cannot be caused to exist nor caused to cease to exist

but energy can transform from one from into another

so I say it is causal not caused; what I am referring to is a PROCESS through time not an FORM of energy creation event (like say transforming electrical energy into light energy when you flip a light switch on; flipping the switch connected to a generator and a light bulb CAUSED the electrical energy to transform into light energy; it causes the existence of light!)

But it doesn't cause the existence of energy.

Energy here is merely causal.

And EVERYTHING is energy, so energy is self-causal.

[brewerb]

^^^ That and a dollar will get me a shitty cup of coffee.

But thanks for letting us check out big brain on HB.

[Paleophyte]

Unless you're talking movie magic with the T-1000, cybernetics doesn't travel back in time and cause itself. I have to admit, at least that god would be entertaining. Nothing that we've ever observed is self-causal, and everything that we know about causation tells us that the term is meaningless.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed

so energy cannot be caused to exist nor caused to cease to exist

but energy can transform from one from into another

so I say it is causal not caused; what I am referring to is a PROCESS through time not an FORM of energy creation event (like say transforming electrical energy into light energy when you flip a light switch on; flipping the switch connected to a generator and a light bulb CAUSED the electrical energy to transform into light energy; it causes the existence of light!)

But it doesn't cause the existence of energy.

Energy here is merely causal.

And EVERYTHING is energy, so energy is self-causal.

No, because energy doesn't cause itself. Energy now causes energy later. All you're doing here is identifying that root cause again. You're asking, "What causes energy?" There isn't a good answer to that, so you get mystical.

[Mancunian]

Unless you're talking movie magic with the T-1000, cybernetics doesn't travel back in time and cause itself. I have to admit, at least that god would be entertaining. Nothing that we've ever observed is self-causal, and everything that we know about causation tells us that the term is meaningless.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed

so energy cannot be caused to exist nor caused to cease to exist

but energy can transform from one from into another

so I say it is causal not caused; what I am referring to is a PROCESS through time not an FORM of energy creation event (like say transforming electrical energy into light energy when you flip a light switch on; flipping the switch connected to a generator and a light bulb CAUSED the electrical energy to transform into light energy; it causes the existence of light!)

But it doesn't cause the existence of energy.

Energy here is merely causal.

And EVERYTHING is energy, so energy is self-causal.

Well thanks for that, that puts all of our minds at rest.
How does Jehovah fit into all this?

[Deesse23]

This guy clearly has no formal education in any science at all. I'm bet he went to YouTube university, like all those crackpots who think they are smarter than each and every scientist of the past 100y. The complete lack of self awareness is.... mind blowing.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

it's not an observational proof, is one based on pure reason.

The reasoning of idiots and lunatics is worth exactly two shares of this "nothing" you've been on about.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

This guy clearly has no formal education in any science at all. I'm bet he went to YouTube university, like all those crackpots who think they are smarter than each and every scientist of the past 100y. The complete lack of self awareness is.... mind blowing.

Nah. He's the smartest guy guy in the world. Don't believe it? Just ask him.