(September 23, 2021 at 3:07 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(September 21, 2021 at 11:42 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: This is merely assertion.
It's the causality principle. Are you sure you want to drop causality ?
If causality is a feature of the universe then asking for the cause of the universe is slightly less sensible than asking for the causality. Kindly demonstrate causality without a universe. Have fun on the epistemology with that one.
Quote:(September 21, 2021 at 11:42 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Sloppy and incorrect. Humans need reasons to try and make sense of things. A rock needs no reason for its existence, it simply exists. It requires causality, not a back story.
Don't be unfair to rocks. A rock is simply a component of the Earth's crust, without which you would be swimming in valleys of iron/nickel at their melting temperature. That's the "reason" rocks exist.
That is simply a reason that you have given it. Even a superficial examination of it reveals fatal flaws, the simplest of which is that the overwhelming majority of rocks don't exist on Earth, or even in our solar system. As such they are utterly incapable of fulfilling the "reason" you suggest above. Nice work on the egocentrism though.
Quote:(September 21, 2021 at 11:42 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Kindly demonstrate that the universe is contingent.
X is contingent if it could have not existed. The universe could have not existed. QED.
This is assertion, not reason. Kindly demonstrate that the universe could have not existed.