-->
@3RU7AL
These are 100% of the factors involved.Unless you can suggest something else?
I do not dispute their being factors in the discharge of the projectile. However, how is that pertinent to "pulling" the trigger?
These are 100% of the factors involved.Unless you can suggest something else?
Where is dependency necessarily established?
I do not dispute their being factors in the discharge of the projectile.
However, how is that pertinent to "pulling" the trigger?
7 days later
It's tautological.(IFF) physical events are governed solely by the "laws" of physics (THEN) all physical events have necessary and essential physical causes.(IFF) you are proposing some "non-physical" "force" interferes with the "laws" of physics (THEN) please present your best evidence of such a "force"
Pulling the trigger is a physical event that is preceded by necessary and essential physical causes.
What is the necessary and essential physical cause and why is this necessary and essential physical cause not repeating itself ad infinitum? Aren't we all pulling triggers, now?
IFF) Each and every event is CAUSED (THEN) these causes produce a complex orchestra of events (which are also causes).The only alternative to this orchestra of events is the hypothetical UNCAUSED-CAUSE (de facto RANDOM CAUSE).And a hypothetical UNCAUSED-CAUSE would necessarily violate the CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
We don't need to know each and every specific cause for each and every observable event (which is just a tiny fraction of the ultimate event).
We just need to recognize that an UNCAUSED-CAUSE is logically INCOHERENT.
"Uncaused cause" is the inconceivable beginning....Everything else is a succession of caused events.....One does because one is.
If only there were a beginning; a concept to which only finite minds adhere.
"Uncaused cause" is the inconceivable beginning....Everything else is a succession of caused events.....One does because one is.
I do not subscribe to the notion or argument that "self-caused" is incoherent.
If we find that the observed primordial gravitational waves are indeed highly non-Gaussian, their skewness can be used to measure the energy density fraction of gauge fields during inflation, allowing us to probe the constituents of our Universe when it was less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10-36) of a second old.
(IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.
The irony is that this is an appeal to ignorance: my unwillingness or incapacity to substantiate an argument doesn't not render it unverifiable or unfalsifiable; thus, you must qualify your statement with "indistinguishable" rather than extend your premises to their logical conclusion.
P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
P2: That which comes before or remains "outside" the mind is irrational to any subject.
P3: One's mind and One are the same.
P4: I perceive myself.
C1: Therefore, I am self-caused.
I've very carefully and comprehensively laid out the variables.(EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combinationAnd you're "answer" is "nuh-uh".This is not an "argument". Technically this is referred to as "gain-saying".
(IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.
Strangely enough, I agree with you that Quanta (science) is a sub-category of Qualia (metaphysics).HOWeVer, this does not mean that you can simply throw empirical observation out-of-the-proverbial-window.
This bald assertion is beyond our epistemological limits."The Mind" might be our individual metaphysical "bedrock", but that does not exclude the possibility of "The Mind" being an aspect of NOUMENON.
I agree, it is irrational to attempt to discuss anything that might be considered "truly" "incomprehensible" (GNOSIS).
Have you ever "changed your mind"?
This conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from your stated premises, and therefore fails to qualify as sound logic.
My response wouldn't amount to a "nuh-uh." I'm pointing out that you're evaluating the veracity or falsifiability of the claim, "self-caused" contingent on my capacity to substantiate it, rather than evaluate the claim itself. [You have done so before but not in this instance.] That's an appeal to ignorance:
P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
It doesn't matter what you prefer to call it."Self-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination"God-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination"Spirit-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combinationThis is tautological (encompassing all possible variables) and NOT an "appeal to ignorance".No claim can be considered SOUND unless it is presented in the appropriate format.You don't get "the benefit of the doubt". Neither do I. Nor does anyone.
How do you draw this particular conclusion?