The shortest proof for the existence of an uncaused cause using deductive arguments only

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
My Goal here is to give the shortest proof of an uncaused cause using deductive arguments only. One could call this an ontological argument, but please do not confuse this with Anselm’s ontological argument.

Premise 1. Absolutely nothing cannot be a true state of affairs, because there is no truth in absolutely nothing and a true state of affairs is always about something. In other-words the concept of there actually being absolutely nothing and at the same time being true is meaningless like a square-circle.

Premise 2. Therefore an necessary being, an uncaused cause, must necessarily exist, for if only unnecessary beings existed then it would be possible for absolutely nothing to exist, which conflicts with premise 1.

Conclusion: A necessary uncaused-cause exists.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Absolutely nothing cannot be a true state of affairs, because there is no truth in absolutely nothing and a true state of affairs is always about something. In other-words the concept of there actually being absolutely nothing and at the same time being true is meaningless like a square-circle.
Click to expand...
The truth value of “there is nothing” does not change if there is any one understanding that or not.
 
States of affairs aren’t true or false. Propositions about the state of affairs are true or false
 
STT said:
The truth value of “there is nothing” does not change if there is any one understanding that or not.
Click to expand...
If there is absolutely nothing then there is also no truth. I consider truth to be primarily an expression of reality. even truths that exist as purely abstractions cannot be true without reality. For example the idea that there cannot be a square-circle is true, it is eternally true, and it is not a truth that is independent of reality; it is true about reality or because of the nature of reality. If there were absolutely nothing there would be nothing for anything to be true about, in which case the very notion of truth breaks down since it would cease to be true that a square-circle cannot exist, which is absurd; and this is why i consider the very idea of absolutely nothing absurd because there is no truth in absolutely nothing…

If you accept the idea that truth is an expression of reality, the argument succeeds. And if you don’t then i fail to see any other meaningful conception of truth apart from reality.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
If there is absolutely nothing then there is also no truth. I consider truth to be primarily an expression of reality. even truths that exist as purely abstractions cannot be true without reality. For example the idea that there cannot be a square-circle is true, it is eternally true, and it is not a truth that is independent of reality; it is true about reality or because of the nature of reality. If there were absolutely nothing there would be nothing for anything to be true about, in which case the very notion of truth breaks down since it would cease to be true that a square-circle cannot exist, which is absurd; and this is why i consider the very idea of absolutely nothing absurd because there is no truth in absolutely nothing…

If you accept the idea that truth is an expression of reality, the argument succeeds. And if you don’t then i fail to see any other meaningful conception of truth apart from reality.
Click to expand...
The truth is an expression of how reality should look like if there is any. Its truth value does not depend if there is any reality or not. In fact, the truth doesn’t depend on the reality but reality depends on the truth.
 
STT said:
the truth doesn’t depend on the reality but reality depends on the truth.
Click to expand...
The idea that the truth simply exists without reference or relationship to reality is meaningless. Things are true about reality. Truth defines reality. Truth doesn’t just exist in it’s own ontological bubble; that’s a meaningless conception of truth. Truth has no existence apart from reality.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
The idea that the truth simply exists without reference or relationship to reality is meaningless. Things are true about reality. Truth defines reality . Truth doesn’t just exist in it’s own ontological bubble; that’s a meaningless conception of truth. Truth has no existence apart from reality.
Click to expand...
Does truth value of 1+1=2 changes if there is any reality or not? No. That is an abstract object. One apple plus one apple equals to two apples however happens within a reality. That is a real object.
 
STT said:
Does truth value of 1+1=2 changes if there is any reality or not?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as the truth value of 1 + 1 = 2 in absolutely nothing. It’s absolutely nothing. It is not absolutely nothing plus the truth value of 1 + 1 = 2. That’s absurd and a contradiction.
STT said:
That is an abstract object.
Click to expand...
And neither is there any abstract objects in absolutely nothing.
 
That’s a weird thing to think. 1+1=2 is an analytic a priori proposition with clearly deducible truth value. It doesn’t depends on having things to count
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
That’s a weird thing to think. 1+1=2 is a proposition whose truth is an analytic a priori truth. It doesn’t depends on having things to count
Click to expand...
Nobody said that 1+1=2 depends on a quantifiable referent in-order to remain true. But it is true only because of the nature of existence. All truth is either due to, or about the nature of, existence, and we can make abstractions that have truth values because of our experience of existence. If there were absolutely nothing, there would be no truth. One cannot say that there is absolutely nothing but at the same time say there is also the truth that 1 + 1 = 2. That is clearly a contradiction…
 
Last edited:
Truth isn’t a matter of ontology. It’s a matter of logic. There isn’t a blob of truth floating around somewhere in the universe
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
Truth isn’t a matter of ontology. It’s a matter of logic.
Click to expand...
Logic is only possible because there is an ontology, otherwise there is absolutely nothing. You cannot say there is absolutely nothing and at the same time logic. That is a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Does truth value of 1+1=2 changes if there is any reality or not?
Click to expand...
The truth value of “1 + 1 = 2” changes depending on the context. It is true in number base 3 or greater. It is meaningless in base 1 or 2, where ‘2’ is a meaningless symbol. It is false in modulo 2 arithmetic (where 1 + 1 = 0) or in logic (where 1 + 1 = 1).

The truth value of a Mathematical statement is highly dependent on the axioms currently in force. Mathematics is an axiomatic system and changing axioms can change a great many things.

rossum
 
Last edited:
No it isn’t. Logic isn’t a thing that exists in the universe. You can’t touch it. Or see it. Sure, if there was nothing there would be nobody to analyze statements. Or things to make statements about. But that’s different than there being no propositions. They don’t exist in the world either.
 
Rhubarb said:
No it isn’t. Logic isn’t a thing that exists in the universe.
Click to expand...
It’s irrelevant. Truth is about reality or it is based on an abstraction of reality, or it is nothing at all like you said. It’s meaningless to speak of truth outside of an ontology. There is no abstractions of truth to be made from absolutely nothing, because there is nothing at all. There are no truths in absolutely nothing. If there were absolutely nothing, then truth values would be meaningless and so would logic.
 
Last edited:
Truth isn’t an abstraction. It isn’t a property of the natural world. You can’t find truth in the world, like you can find chairness, or blueness

A possible world with an empty ontology can still be rationally and logically discussed. Propositions about that possible world can be analyzed and truth values found.
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
That’s a weird thing to think. 1+1=2 is an analytic a priori proposition with clearly deducible truth value. It doesn’t depends on having things to count
Click to expand...
Yes. You just demonstrate it very well.
 
rossum said:
The truth value of “1 + 1 = 2” changes depending on the context. It is true in number base 3 or greater. It is meaningless in base 1 or 2, where ‘2’ is a meaningless symbol. It is false in modulo 2 arithmetic (where 1 + 1 = 0) or in logic (where 1 + 1 = 1).
Click to expand...
We are talking the truth value of 1+1=2 in base 10.
 
rossum said:
The truth value of “1 + 1 = 2” changes depending on the context. It is true in number base 3 or greater. It is meaningless in base 1 or 2, where ‘2’ is a meaningless symbol. It is false in modulo 2 arithmetic (where 1 + 1 = 0) or in logic (where 1 + 1 = 1).
Click to expand...
We are talking about the truth value of 1+1=2 in base 10.
 
STT said:
We are talking the truth value of 1+1=2 in base 10.
Click to expand...
In Chinese characters “=” is the symbol for the integer between 1 and 3, or S(S(0)) in Peano notation. The symbol for the equivalent of Arabic “4” looks more like “+”.

You need more axioms/assumptions than you probably think.

The earlier post was still in error sine it did not specify the necessary (but not sufficient) “in base 10”.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top