And you keep telling me I can’t prove “uncausedness.” If by now you don’t know that I’m not trying to to do that or anything like it, after I’ve told you God-knows-how-many times, then why am I bothering with this?
Again: I have made no argument resembling “something exists, therefore it exists,” and I’m not proving acausality.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The premises are not invalid, in fact they are as valid and disprovable as it gets.
[/quote]
This is a microcosm of the difficulties we’re having. First of all, premises cannot be valid. Arguments are valid. If you don’t understand what I precisely mean when I say your argument is invalid, then it’s not surprising that few of your posts seem to be relevant to our discussion.
Secondly, why is the word “disprovable” here?[/quote]
It’s not enough to disagree, you have to prove it wrong and present a counter argument that proves it wrong.
It’s much like government, everybody sees problems, but those are worthless with out solutions. Such is the case here. If you are claiming you cannot prove it wrong, only feel you see perceived problems you don’t have a point. If the argument is wrong, prove it wrong with your own argument that disproves this argument. It has to be logically valid.
If you want to prove that ‘something’ can either be caused or uncaused, then prove it. And good luck.
Like I said, you don’t have to take my word for it. Don’t believe me, take it to a philosophy professor. [/quote]
Don’t you see that I’m proving it? I said, from the start: Pat, you will not prove what you think you can. That has been my contention–this because you cannot.
And now you’ve tried. And each argument has been extremely weak, and I’ve dismantled each very, very easily. My last post proves your most recent argument invalid. Please read it.[/quote]
Hubris won’t help you here. I dealt with your argument and I answer your perceived problem at least 10 times. If your positing something uncaused it must be dealt with explicitly. This is not an argument for an uncaused entity. It simply doesn’t deal with it. Your claims are circular and they violate logic. You can keep saying what you want, you have no way around the problem.
A last time:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
I will await a post that addresses this argument specifically.
If you need me to explain anything, I will.
Edit: If you ignore it, or can’t address it, then I will consider this debate settled.
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility (which doesn’t make it false) yet you seem to consider it false until proven true.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]
Precisely correct.
What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]
Precisely correct.
What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.[/quote]
Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at as well.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, rethinking it the argument as stands is perfectly fine. You criticisms are invalid because you don’t show how they are false.[/quote]
This is not true. I said very plainly: Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. This is the precise definition of an invalid argument. Here is why your conclusion does not follow from your premises:
I take the counter-proposition that The something referred to in this argument is uncaused.Let’s look at it:
It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.
It satisfies premise 2, because it did not cause itself–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever.
It satisfies premise 3, because it was not “caused by [nothing]”–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever. Instead, it was simply uncaused, which is a very much different thing.
So, it satisfies premises 1, 2, and 3–and yet is the antipode of 4. This means that all of your premises can be true and the conclusion still false–and that is what you find in a beginner’s logic textbook when you look up the definition of “invalid.”
So, you will have to rule out the possibility of my counter-proposition. But you simply can’t do that, and this becomes more obvious with every single post. If you can, then do it. Expand the above argument so that it also eliminates–logically, validly, soundly–the counter-proposition that the [something] was not caused. Seeing as how that is the basis of all this, it should be paid a little more attention by you.
Edit: Please read this one carefully before replying. The argument you provided is very plainly invalid, for the very plain reason I just gave, and I’m not going to argue that point another time because this now makes 3 or 4. You can try to address your problem or not, but the problem is so simple and identifiable that I don’t want to waste more words pointing at it.[/quote]
And I said very plainly and I cannot understand how you don’t understand this very simple fact that your proposed solution makes the argument circular! (Using your bold-italics tactic which I was hoping we could dispose of since its seriously not necessary. No need to shout.) This is not an argument for an uncaused entity. You cannot derive an uncaused entity by this methodology. That’s why you have the cosmological argument. Its the only logical way to derive an Uncaused-cause. You cannot derive it explicitly. Its logically impossible.
Your claim makes the argument circular because taking the argument as you propose would look like this:
This proposition violates logic. It begs the question and is therefore false, period. There is no way around it. You cannot derive uncausedness from this argument.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? I literally never made, or tried to make, or came remotely close to making the argument that you just put in my mouth. My conclusion is not that “something exists,” and in fact I don’t have a conclusion because I did not offer an argument, I offered a valid scenario wherein your argument is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be invalid.
You need to reevaluate and understand what’s happening here. You offered an argument of three premises and one conclusion. I showed that your three premises can be satisfied and your conclusion can still be false–such being the definition of an invalid logical argument–such proving that yours is invalid.
I will reiterate. It is very simple, and notice that no strange circular argument is being made here–that the entirety of my present contention is set forth in the few dozen words that constitute the remainder of this post:
The following argument, which you made–
–is invalid, because if the [something] of premise 1 is uncaused, then premises 1, 2, and 3 are satisfied and yet the conclusion is false. The conclusion, in other words, is not entailed by the premises.[/quote]
That is only the case if you violate logic. The premises are not invalid, in fact they are as valid and disprovable as it gets. All you’ve shown is you disagree. That doesn’t make it wrong. And yes, you do have to make a counter argument, to prove your point. The premises are sound. You have not proven they are not, contrarily you have not shown other wise. You may think it, but that is not enough you have to prove it and in that you’ve failed. You don’t have to take my word for it.
I have already explained you cannot prove something uncaused explicitly. You cannot assume something is uncaused unless it’s defined as so. It must be explicitly stated as uncaused in the initial premise. The only way and I do mean the only way to determine and uncaused entity is the cosmological argument. There is no other argument that can do it. If something exists, it is reasonable to ask it’s origin, it’s reason for being. The only way that would be unreasonable is if uncausedness is defined explicitly. I really don’t see how you are not seeing that your admonitions are necessarily circular. [/quote]
No no no Pat, this is not how constructing logical arguments and proofs works. What you are doing now is a particularly common logical fallacy called “argument from ignorance.” The way that a logical proof works is that you have a series of statements that lead to a conclusion. If you can show that if the conditions you have laid out are met, then the conclusion follows every time then you have proven your argument, but it is on you to prove it. It does not mean that it is true until someone else explicitly shows it to be false. We are claiming that your argument is not valid. The burden of proving this is on us.
In this case, you have had several people spell out very carefully how your argument is false by showing that there is a case where your premises are met but the conclusion is false (this is the very definition of how to prove an argument is invalid): namely, that you claim an uncaused being, (God) exists. This satisfies all of your premises but your conclusion is not satisfied. This means that you have not proven your argument that God exists and is uncaused.
This is exactly the same as sufiandy’s perfect analogy:
All we have to do is show that something has color and is not red, blue, or purple. This does not mean that nothing is purple, just that this argument for determining the purpleness of something is wrong. In the case of your argument, the claim your argument is supposed to prove shows it to be invalid by satisfying all of the premises but not the conclusion.
It should be noted that our demonstrating that your argument is invalid is not the same as proving that God doesn’t exist, none of us are claiming that. If we were then you would be correct that the burden of proving this claim would be on us, and it is a very difficult claim to prove, probably as difficult as proving he does exist using logical arguments. We have merely claimed that your argument is invalid, which we have demonstrated. Many. many times.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are simply wrong at this point, or not understanding the argument against which you are pitted. Nothing in your previous post was even apropos of the debate. So, here is an argument, tell me precisely where you find fault and why:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
[/quote]
Again, circular. You are arguing that the argument is invalid because it is in fact circular.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Also, look up the word “because,” think about its etymology, and then see why my counter-proposition cannot and will not ever be phrased with the word “because.”[/quote]
If you are arguing for something uncaused explicitly then you cannot use the word uncaused. You cannot argue that something is both caused and uncaused. You cannot determine that something is uncaused from this argument.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility (which doesn’t make it false) yet you seem to consider it false until proven true.[/quote]
That’s not the case with this argument, we are dealing with a contingent entity. The reason we cannot determine said ‘something’ is uncaused because it has to be stated explicitly. So long as dealing with something for which it’s reason for existing can be questioned, then it has a cause. In the case of an uncaused entity the question is invalid from the start. You cannot ask what caused, something uncaused. By definition its an invalid question.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
A last time:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
I will await a post that addresses this argument specifically.[/quote]
If the something in this argument is uncaused, it must be a premise which makes the other premises invalid because causation has become irrelevant and its redundant. You cannot determine uncausedness explicitly because all arguments are necessarily circular.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]
Precisely correct.
What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.[/quote]
Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at as well.
[/quote]
The proof? The proof is simple, 'Can you ask why ‘something’? exists. If you are dealing with something caused the answer is ‘yes’, if you are dealing with something uncaused, the answer is ‘No’.
What an uncaused entity must be makes it logically in valid to ask ‘why?’ There is no ‘why’. You cannot deal with uncaused entities explicitly. Its because what an entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. Those unique properties are totally different from caused entities.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
How are you not doing this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy[/quote]
Because the premises are true. Sure I can make a logical argument that is logically sound and false, but that is not what is happening here.
Something exists T or F?
Something cannot be explained by itself T or F?
Something does not not happen for nothing T or F?
These are all true too but is my conclusion true?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
A last time:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
I will await a post that addresses this argument specifically.[/quote]
If the something in this argument is uncaused, it must be a premise which makes the other premises invalid because causation has become irrelevant and its redundant. You cannot determine uncausedness explicitly because all arguments are necessarily circular.
[/quote]
You are not making sense. This is literally not a criticism, and in fact I don’t take any meaning from it. The point is simple and I refuse to believe that you don’t understand it: Your argument is plainly invalid, for the reasons I’ve laid out. In trying to prove causation, you assume a trifurcated set of possibilities–“Caused by itself; caused by [nothing], caused by something else”–all of which take causation as an implied given. You ignore the counter-proposition that the something that exists is uncaused. I cannot and will not explain this any more clearly.
I have laid out a meticulous argument which proves beyond any doubt that your argument is invalid. Point to a specific fallacy in my argument–e.g., “Premise 3 is flawed because…”–if you think that you can.
Find a problem and point precisely to it. Otherwise, things seem to have been tied up.
[quote]
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]
Precisely correct.
What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.[/quote]
Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at as well.
[/quote]
The proof? The proof is simple, 'Can you ask why ‘something’? exists. If you are dealing with something caused the answer is ‘yes’, if you are dealing with something uncaused, the answer is ‘No’.
What an uncaused entity must be makes it logically in valid to ask ‘why?’ There is no ‘why’. You cannot deal with uncaused entities explicitly. Its because what an entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. Those unique properties are totally different from caused entities. [/quote]
What? You can still ask the question, whether it is a nonsensical question or not. Let’s try:
Why does a circle have four sides?
Why are tomatoes composed of right angles?
Why are vaginas always singing opera?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are simply wrong at this point, or not understanding the argument against which you are pitted. Nothing in your previous post was even apropos of the debate. So, here is an argument, tell me precisely where you find fault and why:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here is my argument in argument form:
Argument A states that
[i]----1'. Something exists.
----2'. That something cannot have caused itself.
----3'. That something cannot have been caused by nothing.
----4'. Therefore, that something is caused.[/i]
If [the something that exists, detailed in premise 1’, is uncaused]–hereafter referred to as proposition P–then the something that exists was not caused by itself and it was not caused by [nothing].
Therefore, if P, then premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied.
However, if premises 1’, 2’, and 3’ are satisfied, then either conclusion 4’ is true, or argument A is invalid.
If P, then ~4’
Therefore, argument A is invalid.[/quote]
[/quote]
Again, circular. You are arguing that the argument is invalid because it is in fact circular.[/quote]
What?
I am arguing that the argument is invalid because its conclusion does not follow from its premises. I am not sure you’re reading this argument.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, rethinking it the argument as stands is perfectly fine. You criticisms are invalid because you don’t show how they are false.[/quote]
This is not true. I said very plainly: Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. This is the precise definition of an invalid argument. Here is why your conclusion does not follow from your premises:
I take the counter-proposition that The something referred to in this argument is uncaused.Let’s look at it:
It satisfies premise 1 because I admit that this something exists.
It satisfies premise 2, because it did not cause itself–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever.
It satisfies premise 3, because it was not “caused by [nothing]”–it was uncaused, and thus cannot be said to have been “caused by X,” where X is any word whatsoever. Instead, it was simply uncaused, which is a very much different thing.
So, it satisfies premises 1, 2, and 3–and yet is the antipode of 4. This means that all of your premises can be true and the conclusion still false–and that is what you find in a beginner’s logic textbook when you look up the definition of “invalid.”
So, you will have to rule out the possibility of my counter-proposition. But you simply can’t do that, and this becomes more obvious with every single post. If you can, then do it. Expand the above argument so that it also eliminates–logically, validly, soundly–the counter-proposition that the [something] was not caused. Seeing as how that is the basis of all this, it should be paid a little more attention by you.
Edit: Please read this one carefully before replying. The argument you provided is very plainly invalid, for the very plain reason I just gave, and I’m not going to argue that point another time because this now makes 3 or 4. You can try to address your problem or not, but the problem is so simple and identifiable that I don’t want to waste more words pointing at it.[/quote]
And I said very plainly and I cannot understand how you don’t understand this very simple fact that your proposed solution makes the argument circular! (Using your bold-italics tactic which I was hoping we could dispose of since its seriously not necessary. No need to shout.) This is not an argument for an uncaused entity. You cannot derive an uncaused entity by this methodology. That’s why you have the cosmological argument. Its the only logical way to derive an Uncaused-cause. You cannot derive it explicitly. Its logically impossible.
Your claim makes the argument circular because taking the argument as you propose would look like this:
This proposition violates logic. It begs the question and is therefore false, period. There is no way around it. You cannot derive uncausedness from this argument.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? I literally never made, or tried to make, or came remotely close to making the argument that you just put in my mouth. My conclusion is not that “something exists,” and in fact I don’t have a conclusion because I did not offer an argument, I offered a valid scenario wherein your argument is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be invalid.
You need to reevaluate and understand what’s happening here. You offered an argument of three premises and one conclusion. I showed that your three premises can be satisfied and your conclusion can still be false–such being the definition of an invalid logical argument–such proving that yours is invalid.
I will reiterate. It is very simple, and notice that no strange circular argument is being made here–that the entirety of my present contention is set forth in the few dozen words that constitute the remainder of this post:
The following argument, which you made–
–is invalid, because if the [something] of premise 1 is uncaused, then premises 1, 2, and 3 are satisfied and yet the conclusion is false. The conclusion, in other words, is not entailed by the premises.[/quote]
That is only the case if you violate logic. The premises are not invalid, in fact they are as valid and disprovable as it gets. All you’ve shown is you disagree. That doesn’t make it wrong. And yes, you do have to make a counter argument, to prove your point. The premises are sound. You have not proven they are not, contrarily you have not shown other wise. You may think it, but that is not enough you have to prove it and in that you’ve failed. You don’t have to take my word for it.
I have already explained you cannot prove something uncaused explicitly. You cannot assume something is uncaused unless it’s defined as so. It must be explicitly stated as uncaused in the initial premise. The only way and I do mean the only way to determine and uncaused entity is the cosmological argument. There is no other argument that can do it. If something exists, it is reasonable to ask it’s origin, it’s reason for being. The only way that would be unreasonable is if uncausedness is defined explicitly. I really don’t see how you are not seeing that your admonitions are necessarily circular. [/quote]
No no no Pat, this is not how constructing logical arguments and proofs works. What you are doing now is a particularly common logical fallacy called “argument from ignorance.” The way that a logical proof works is that you have a series of statements that lead to a conclusion. If you can show that if the conditions you have laid out are met, then the conclusion follows every time then you have proven your argument, but it is on you to prove it. It does not mean that it is true until someone else explicitly shows it to be false. We are claiming that your argument is not valid. The burden of proving this is on us.
[/quote]
But that’s not what I am doing at all. I am not saying the argument is true until the argument is proven false, the argument is true because we are dealing with causation and we are dealing with 2 options.
And if you do say an argument is false, don’t you think you should prove it? Can we disprove logical arguments simply by saying, nope that’s not right?
In the case of causation, what are your alternatives? You have caused or uncaused. Is there another? Would not a 3rd option just be causal and therefore reducible to one of the two?
If, in the case of causation you know of something more than caused and uncaused I sure as hell would like to know what it is.
And that is the contention that smh is provide. Well it ‘something’ can be caused, ‘something’ can be uncaused, or something can be ???
The point is that you cannot derive the existence of something uncaused explicitly. It’s impossible because of what something must be to both exist and be uncaused. If ‘something’ isn’t determined to be uncaused in the premise then it’s not an alternative. Unless the question ‘why does something exist?’ is prove to be explicitly invalid. Then uncaused is not an option.
For instance:
You cannot add the premise ‘that something did not cause itself’, it’s not caused so to say it’s not caused by itself is redundant. It’s uncaused, there is no causation. Causation does not exist here.
Which would be a perfect criticism if there were more than 2 options. In this case there are not. So if it’s not one, then its the other and vice versa. If there are billions of options as in the case of color, then you have a point, more premises are then required to determine which color. But in the case of causation there are 2 options. Only 2 and no others. Like I said, if there are more than 2 options in the case of causation then I want to know what the 3, or billions of others there could be.
The criticisms is one of false alternatives.
[quote]
It should be noted that our demonstrating that your argument is invalid is not the same as proving that God doesn’t exist, none of us are claiming that. If we were then you would be correct that the burden of proving this claim would be on us, and it is a very difficult claim to prove, probably as difficult as proving he does exist using logical arguments. We have merely claimed that your argument is invalid, which we have demonstrated. Many. many times.[/quote]
Certainly, we are not talking about the existence of God here. We are only talking about causation. In causation you have 2 options caused and uncaused. It’s a binary problem. It’s either a 1 or a 0 and if not a 1 then a 0, if not 0 then 1. There isn’t an option of a non-answer.
And sure there are other arguments for the existence of God. The cosmological argument requires causation as a premise. The other arguments require much deeper understandings of metaphysics. The cosmological arguement is the most approachable.
Let’s put it this way:
Why does something exist?
Why does something uncaused exist?
Leibniz put it much simpler. “Why does something exist, rather than nothing?”
Also, the consequence of disproving causation isn’t limited to God. It would destroy all understanding. All science, all academia is destroyed we would know nothing about our existence. It would be unintelligible.
And no, ganging up on me 3 to 1 is not going to force me to ignore what logic tells me is true.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, what is your proof that something cannot be uncaused? It seems the problem is we are offering that as an unprovable possibility[/quote]
Precisely correct.
What is is his proof? Well it was the “argument A” I referenced in my logical progression above. But that argument is clearly invalid.[/quote]
Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at as well.
[/quote]
The proof? The proof is simple, 'Can you ask why ‘something’? exists. If you are dealing with something caused the answer is ‘yes’, if you are dealing with something uncaused, the answer is ‘No’.
What an uncaused entity must be makes it logically in valid to ask ‘why?’ There is no ‘why’. You cannot deal with uncaused entities explicitly. Its because what an entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. Those unique properties are totally different from caused entities. [/quote]
I’m thinking of some entity that is either caused or uncaused (I won’t tell which it is), lets call it X.
Why does X exist?
Is that a valid question?