Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Being unknown/unknowable is not the same as being undefined. So it is reasonable to state that nothing undefined exists because anything that exists has an observable effect, at least in principle, in the world that would be part of its definition. Incidentally this is why your proposed undefined first cause is invalid.
|
I think you're going mad. The universes exists, has an obseravble effect, but what caused the singularity is undefined and fuck all is known about the singularity.
You seem to think the sum of all known parts equals existence. Can you define anything which is unknowable? No? Thought not. Can you not define anything known? No again huh?
Sure they're not the same, but they go hand in hand.
You seem to forget it is you lot who require the definition as it being undefined has no bearing on my view whatsoever. I consider that there is a high likelyhood of many things being unknowable You choose to discount that as I cannot define the unknowable your position is valid. It’s not.
Quote:
|
There are many very specific kinds of natural events that we know are not (intentionally) caused. It is not that we don't know the cause or that the cause is unknowable, there isn't one in principle.
|
So if something pops in and out of existence, within existence, this is enough to say there is no principle? Who told you this?