Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Terrapin Station]

Utter bollocks.
This is a total irrelevance.

It couldn't be more relevant to the question of whether law is racist as an ontological fact.

[Sculptor]

Utter bollocks.
This is a total irrelevance.

It couldn't be more relevant to the question of whether law is racist as an ontological fact.

bollocks

[Terrapin Station]

Utter bollocks.
This is a total irrelevance.

It couldn't be more relevant to the question of whether law is racist as an ontological fact.

bollocks

Never mind the bollocks, that is philosophy.

[Sculptor]

It couldn't be more relevant to the question of whether law is racist as an ontological fact.

bollocks

Never mind the bollocks, that is philosophy.

It's not philosophy, its just words.

[Terrapin Station]

bollocks

Never mind the bollocks, that is philosophy.

It's not philosophy, its just words.

Philosophy, insofar as it's publicly experienceable, is just words.

[Sculptor]

Never mind the bollocks, that is philosophy.

It's not philosophy, its just words.

Philosophy, insofar as it's publicly experienceable, is just words.

But my bollobks are not publicly experienced.

[Eodnhoj7]

Acausality is purely negative and as negative can neither be proven or disproven.

No, "acauasality" could be easily, easily disproven...just find or demonstrate the real cause, and you've done it for that item, phenomenon or event.

What "acausality" apparently cannot be is shown with reference to anything.

The continual regress of causes eventually leads to a cause with no cause behind it, this regress leads to Nothingness which is uncaused.

[Eodnhoj7]

REALLY?

Some can SEE and are SAYING that this appears to be an attempt at DEFLECTION, projected, itself.



OF COURSE, there are MANY, so called, "truths". Each and EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has and holds their OWN, so called, "truth".

Also, so if 'this truth' is a singular entity as a 'singular truth', then does that mean that 'this truth' is irrefutable?

If yes, then does that now make 'this irrefutable truth' absolute?

And if yes, then would that now make 'this irrefutable and absolute truth', 'A truth of things'?

If yes, the I just refer to this kind or type of 'truth' as 'thee ACTUAL Truth of things', or shortened, 'thee Truth', which just makes expressing 'that thing' SIMPLER and EASIER.



OF COURSE.

Contrary to YOUR BELIEF 'this' has NEVER been DISPUTED.

What I did was ask you to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of the 'a "specific thing", which you were 'trying to' CLAIM NOT everyone agrees with, which you THEN 'tried to' CLAIM was "one singular truth".

Talk about DEFLECTION.

To me, there are SOME 'things' that EVERY one does AGREE ON, so if this is True, then that would REFUTE your CLAIM here. And then, this THE OPPOSITE of YOUR CLAIM would NOW become 'one singular (irrefutable and absolute) Truth. Surely this NOT to HARD NOR COMPLEX to UNDERSTAND?

Also, the ONLY other thing I did here was to ask you, 'one WHAT, exists though many WHAT/S?'

What can be SEEN here is you have FAILED to answer my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you, as well as FAILING to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of what I CHALLENGED you about.

Now, if you had been Truly OPEN and Honest, by PROVIDING BOTH the EXAMPLE and the ANSWER, then we could have come together in AGREEMENT, MUCH EARLIER, MUCH SIMPLER, MUCH QUICKER, and MUCH EASIER than we are going to now.

1. The constant nature of the truth being "there are multiple truths" necessitates it as absolute. Absoluteness is consistency.

So, to just CLARIFY, to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, what does the 'it' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

2. One form exists through many forms, this form is a loop as a form whose beginning is the same as the end when traced.

Yes 'we' ALREADY KNEW this. Quite 'some time' ago too, if thee Truth be KNOWN.
[/quote]

1. "The truth being "there are multiple truths"" is what is referenced to by "it".

[Immanuel Can]

The continual regress of causes eventually leads to a cause with no cause behind it, this regress leads to Nothingness which is uncaused.

Except that there is no instance in which "Nothingness" created anything. Remember that "nothing" is not even "a thing." It is never in the causal chain at all. It's the absence of anything to BE in the causal chain.

So something started the chain, and it can't be "nothingness." Rather, it has to be something. But that something has to be eternal itself, or the causal regress problem persists.

So what is eternal, that is not "nothing," and is also capable of creating a universe?

[Eodnhoj7]

The continual regress of causes eventually leads to a cause with no cause behind it, this regress leads to Nothingness which is uncaused.

Except that there is no instance in which "Nothingness" created anything. Remember that "nothing" is not even "a thing." It is never in the causal chain at all. It's the absence of anything to BE in the causal chain.

So something started the chain, and it can't be "nothingness." Rather, it has to be something. But that something has to be eternal itself, or the causal regress problem persists.

So what is eternal, that is not "nothing," and is also capable of creating a universe?

Nothingness is acausal as it is absent of anything including a cause. The acausality of Nothingness can be observed from being emerging from nothing. Being emerging from nothing necessitates an uncaused state from which a causal chain exists. This being from nothing can be observed through a simple point in time and space where upon closer examination being expands from this point, from further examination being condenses back to this point.

Dually if we look at being as an infinite regress of being through being they we are left with being as a loop or spiral which contains Nothingness at its center.

[Immanuel Can]

...being emerging from nothing. Being emerging from nothing necessitates an uncaused state from which a causal chain exists.

Unfortunately for this answer, there are precisely NO empirical case of "nothing" creating anything. And there is absolutely no evidence that what preceded the universe was a "nothing." So the answer given is obviously not founded on anything at all. It's a "nothing" answer.

Whatever did start the universe had to be an eternal entity. And that eternal entity could decidedly not be "Nothing." That much, we know.

[Terrapin Station]

The continual regress of causes eventually leads to a cause with no cause behind it, this regress leads to Nothingness which is uncaused.

Except that there is no instance in which "Nothingness" created anything. Remember that "nothing" is not even "a thing." It is never in the causal chain at all. It's the absence of anything to BE in the causal chain.

So something started the chain, and it can't be "nothingness." Rather, it has to be something. But that something has to be eternal itself, or the causal regress problem persists.

So what is eternal, that is not "nothing," and is also capable of creating a universe?

It's not that nothing(ness) creates something. It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally. I forgot what exactly you misread this way earlier, too, but you're so used to thinking in terms of "everything has a cause" that you read acausality as positing a cause.

[Terrapin Station]

...being emerging from nothing. Being emerging from nothing necessitates an uncaused state from which a causal chain exists.

Unfortunately for this answer, there are precisely NO empirical case of "nothing" creating anything. And there is absolutely no evidence that what preceded the universe was a "nothing." So the answer given is obviously not founded on anything at all. It's a "nothing" answer.

Whatever did start the universe had to be an eternal entity. And that eternal entity could decidedly not be "Nothing." That much, we know.

We have no evidence either that any particular event was caused (and that includes deterministically (in an ontological sense) caused if we're making a distinction there) or that any particular event was acausal. It's not the sort of thing that we can have evidence of (as Hume well pointed out long ago).

[Immanuel Can]

It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally.

Give one.

[Eodnhoj7]

It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally.

Give one.

Being expanding from and contracting through a point.

The acausal nature behind being does not necessitate being not being causal.

1. The negation of void results in being as there is no Nothingness only being.

2. This perpetual negation of nothing, as it is not subject to time and space, necessitates being as. eternal.

3. This being exists through reflecting itself with this reflection being a continuity of form.

4. The reflection of being upon nothing results in a variation of said being as it ceases to reflect.

5. This variation in turn reflects until its reflection upon nothing results in further variation.

6. This absence of reflection results in change with this change occuring through the emergence of being from said nothing.

7. However going back to point 2, being perpetually reflects due to the nature of nothing being not subject to time and space. Nothingness negated is not subject to time and space therefore being as Nothingness negated is perpetual. The absence of reflection of being is the limits of said being which occur through variation.

8. Being as reflecting is causal, being as absent of reflection is acausal. Eternal being, ie God, would be an uncaused cause.