First Causes

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Tue Sep 7 15:19:50 EST 2004


On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:52:41 +1000, Bernardz
<Bernard_zzz at REMOVEhotmail.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <413c719f.22600721 at netnews.att.net>, 
>lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net says...
>> What's noteworthy in all three instances, however, is that no one ever
>> proved anything regarding first causes
>> 
>
>Is the word causes a spelling mistake?

No. I had some difficulty deciding singular/plural. Of course, there
is only a first cause. But each approach to metaphysics as science has
a different conception of first cause, leading to a choice of plural.

>Anyway its a bit hard to prove. Perhaps its better to say no one can 
>think of a likely scenario that could produce a first cause. All 
>explanations seem to be shifted slightly further back in time. 

It's not hard to prove at all. We don't need scenarios to produce a
first cause. We need a first cause to produce scenarios. In case you
haven't been following prior threads on the subject, all that's
necessary to prove a first cause is the tautological consideration of
the self contradictory nature of alternatives.

Regards - Lester



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list