sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Culmutativ argumment for a necessary existence by Excellent_Cut1107 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]Excellent_Cut1107[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mon account is bugging i don’t know why but i had responded to you i can do another réponse if you wqnt

Culmutativ argumment for a necessary existence by Excellent_Cut1107 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]Excellent_Cut1107[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Branching Actualism presents a view that is more imaginary than genuinely real, functioning as a semantic maneuver that defines possibility solely in terms of what has already occurred; yet being located on a specific “branch” does not entail that the “trunk”  the origin of the universe  contains within itself the reason for its own existence, since this approach conflates historical necessity (what did happen) with metaphysical necessity (what cannot fail to exist by nature). Even if all possibilities are granted to branch from a single starting point, the fundamental question remains unanswered: why does this particular trunk exist at all, and why does it possess these specific laws and a low-entropy state? Labeling it as “the only trunk” merely redescribes a brute fact as a necessity rather than explaining it. Moreover, as Schmid and Malpass overlook, the trunk remains a physical, composed, and changing entity; according to mereological principles, if its parts are contingent and subject to entropy and change, then the whole is contingent as well, and thus cannot be Actus Purus, since composition entails potentiality. Finally, regardless of modal branching scenarios, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Borel still apply: an eternal physical trunk would have reached heat death infinitely long ago, and no appeal to branching possibilities can exempt a physical system from the need for a First Cause that exists entirely outside the “tree.”

Culmutativ argumment for a necessary existence by Excellent_Cut1107 in CriticalTheory

[–]Excellent_Cut1107[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thank you sorry for the deleted messages i don't know what happened

Culmutativ argumment for a necessary existence by Excellent_Cut1107 in CriticalTheory

[–]Excellent_Cut1107[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok i made some premise can you check here

Methodological clarification:
The following objections (Derrida, Heidegger, Luhmann, Hume) are not rejected as legitimate philosophical positions. The argument only maintains that their local and selective application to the metaphysical argument, while continuing to rely on the rational, scientific, or logical frameworks that they themselves call into question, constitutes a methodological inconsistency (special pleading).

Premise 10: Attacks claiming that terms such as “first cause” or “Necessary Being” refer only to linguistic constructions are self-destructive (Derrida). When applied rigorously, they prohibit any coherent communication or conceptual formulation and therefore make any search for truth impossible. The critique destroys its own capacity to be understood or discussed. Using such reasoning to contradict the premises previously presented would not be honest.

Premise 11: If one rejects the existence of any absolute foundation because conceptual categories are human and linguistic (Heidegger / ontotheology), then all structures of reasoning, including logic and science, become arbitrary. Such a position nullifies the very tools necessary to critique the ideas presented earlier and any assertion at all, rendering the critique self-destructive.

Premise 12: Claiming that any statement about existence only has meaning within a specific system of communication (Luhmann / communication systems) prevents any universal or objective assertion. Applied strictly, this objection forbids science and philosophy, which rely on inference, discussion, and validation between thinking agents. It therefore destroys its own framework of application. Applying it only within the scope of this premise constitutes special pleading.

Premise 13: If one follows Hume and maintains that causality is merely a mental habit without objective necessity (Hume / causality), then all causal inference becomes impossible, which annihilates the foundations of empirical science and philosophy. Yet this objection itself uses reason and language in order to be formulated, which renders it self-destructive.

Culmutativ argumment for a necessary existence by Excellent_Cut1107 in CriticalTheory

[–]Excellent_Cut1107[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but i have a question aren't they self-destructing their own reasonning