FYI:
“Definitional Logic” merely means that the words and concepts being used are clearly explained/defined and remain consistent throughout the reasoning. Definitional Logic prevents ambiguity in the language.
Not necessarily. If ausation has always existed, there need not be a cause for it, only a reason for why it has always existed (which turns out to be the impossibility of it not existing).
Not if causelessness doesn’t exist.
I’ll assume you meant to type causation instead of acausation…
Yeah… There’s that too James
But basic logic is hard to crush with subtlety!!
Causation is an existent…
If all existents are caused, then causation was also caused…
[quote=“James S Saint”]
FYI:
“Definitional Logic” merely means that the words and concepts being used are clearly explained/defined and remain consistent throughout the reasoning. Definitional Logic prevents ambiguity in the language.[
/quote]
James,
That explanation turns on the relationship between logic and language. If, definitional logic is merely a tool to avoid confusions caused by definition, then it begs the ontological basis of logic per se.
There is no avoiding to this primary conflation, because language is primordial to logic, or, is it?
That’s the problem with trying to define logic, primarily. The definitional explanation is on a less complex level. Which gets back to the problem of the Dasein.
Causation is another form of relationship, between existence, and being. It can be inferred into existence, but it can also be referred to non existence, as is in the case of the uncaused causation. Referential logic has been post-scribed by inference.
James, Ecmandu,
Both referential and inferential logic beg the Uncaused Cause, which is the most essential element in this argument. So there is no argument.
The uncaused cause is precisely what James is arguing, even though he hasn’t used that term.
I’m pointing out that caused cause is the logical function of existents…
So where do we go from there?
Let’s take cause and acause out of the equation and use the more neutral term “change”
Is it unchanged change or changed change…
Well obviously change changing means no change at all…
So it’s unchanged change…
Saying unchanged change is just a clever way of stating that change has always been and always will be
No. Causation, as I said, can have existed eternally (and necessarily has).
The “Uncaused Cause”, “Prime Mover”, “God”, is defined as an eternal entity. The confusion is that many people believe that it all had to begin. It didn’t ever begin, because it was never without.
No, “change” is not a synonym for “cause”. “Caused” refers to a change that was instigated by something. "Change doesn’t require that.
No. When “uncaused” merely means “has always existed”, there is no begging the question involved.
Where in what reality did I not state…
Let’s use the value neutral term change to analyze this ??
And yet somehow James, you got out if that, that I was using them as synonyms …
So at first there was the Prime Mover (spiritual) and the universe (physical) and thus two universal realms: (1) the spiritual realm as the foundation of any and all motion (changing); (2) the physical realm containing the motion itself (physical spirit).
Arminius, yes.
But the physical spirit is the most essential of all spirits, next to the Uncaused Cause. The physical Spirit is the highest Archangel, who unfortunately fell, because he got too close to IT.