Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

[James_S_Saint]

@Simms

Precisely my point James… all means all… without exception.
The question becomes: who gets to decide what an “indefinite” label is?

The discussion gets to determine the definiteness of the label.

Indefinite: a person
Definite: John Quincy Adams of Boston Mass.

Indefinite: a penny
Definite: the penny on that table

@Simms

So essentially, and in summary, your argument is one of the psychology of the Madhyamaka Prāsaṅgika view:

@Wikipedia

1.(Pratītyasamutpāda or ‘dependent arising’) All phenomena come to be in dependence on causes and conditions, and cease when those causes and conditions are no longer present. “All things arise in dependence on causes and conditions, and this is the meaning of dependent origination”.
2.(Prajñaptir upādāya or ‘dependent designation’) Entities are also dependent for their existence as entities on conceptual imputation “Although dependent origination is generally maintained to be dependence upon conditions, from our perspective, this is not inconsistent with is also being dependence upon mundane nominal conventions.”
3.All wholes are dependent upon their parts, and the parts of wholes are dependent for their existence on the wholes of which they are parts. "Although both from the standpoint of reality and from that of everyday life, The sevenfold reasoning shows that a chariot cannot be established, in everyday life, without analysis it is designated in dependence on its parts.

That is; objects depend upon their causes, their name and their parts.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

@Simms

But unlike them, you are arguing for the existence of one singly truly-existent indivisible object as the basis for all existence (claiming it has a name, is formless but has no parts and is uncaused).

No. Affect is not an object. That is why it can be infinitely divided.

But now you have given me the impression that you are just arguing to be arguing, ie. disingenuous.

[Simms]

@James S Saint

But now you have given me the impression that you are just arguing to be arguing, ie. disingenuous.

J.S.S, your impressions are not always correct. I don’t see you as just arguing to be arguing. Why do you see me in that way?

On that note, I will step away and leave you to enjoy the company of your own view.

Tx for the discussion.

[James_S_Saint]

@James S Saint

I guess that I have to restate the argument;

Abstract argument;
0) Physical existence is the property of affect.
1) Absolute infinity cannot even conceptually exist
2) Absolute zero is merely the inverse of absolute infinity
2) Thus, absolute zero cannot conceptually exist
3) Thus, absolute zero affect cannot exist
4) Thus, affect must always exist

  5) Therefore, existence must always exist.

And btw, all of the actual laws of physics stem from that understanding.