Well Liebniz said it’s because of a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself, if that helps.
Well Liebniz said it’s because of a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself, if that helps.
deleted by creator
Why is there something instead of nothing
Cool story
stackexchange will probably give you a better answer than lemmy (that’s me trying to be helpful with good advice)
Are these screenshots fake or are search engines saying stuff like this? (I don’t use google)
Free as in free beer?
I know!!! He said “ass”!!! Hahaha my sides
The blog assumes that people need megaplatforms to use the web, and celebrates that it’s an oligopoly not a monopoly
This is arse-over-tits
Imagine I said “get it wherever you get your images” or “wherever you get your blogs”
It’s oligopolistic
Use a wireless combined keyboard+touchpad as the remote
Fedeation is not a bug.
You could use non-federated software if you want non-federated software.
It is, and that’s inherent in the problem under consideration, the problem of the ‘uncaused caused’ or the ‘first mover’. Logic can either be A) circular or B) not-circular. Any not-circular logic must explain each element by referring to a prior, but then you’ve got an infinite regress. So you’re trapped in a dilemma: do you want the circular logic or the infinite regress? Liebniz’s choice was to say that God was inherently existent, like when Lao Tzu said 道法 自然
Correct. It is necessary: it is self-causing. It does not stand upon a ‘reason’, unlike everything else in conditioned existence.
You’re assuming it is subject to the laws of linear time and causation, and point out how that assumption leads to a contradiction. But Liebniz’s God is not subject to the laws of linear time and causation. Which is the whole point of positing it: because if it were subject to those laws: infinite regress.
Well the world exists, so all this existence must have some cause. That was the starting point of the conversation: Why is there something instead of nothing?