Parmenidean Palamite

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 There's no infinite cause. Only an infinite totality of causes that are collectively dependent.

You again ignore that the totality is caused because the causes have a property to be caused.

I see that it has been a waste of our time to have this conversation. Godspeed!

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 You could read Thomas Ward's translation and commentary upon Scotus' Treatise On The First Principle if you're truly curious to know more.

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 The necessity is in contradiction being the case otherwise.

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 then why should it require a cause?

If you don't understand this, maybe you just aren't ready for philosophy of this level. As Dyer says, "you aren't even in the debate"

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 A cause either depends upon another to cause or it doesn't. That's a true dichotomy, not some unwarranted assumption.

If the cause's cause *does* depend upon another, and so ad infinitum, you absolutely could keep regressing indefinitely.

If the causes cause *doesn't* depend...

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 So if the cause *does not* cause due to another or lacks the property that demanded dependency, then why should it require a cause since it lost the reasons for requiring causes?

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 And it's due to what feature that the members of the totality have a cause? Is it not due to being defined to be, somehow, dependent? Such as having to cause *due to another*?

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 It doesn't because it causes from itself, not due to another. So it's independent, instead of dependent.

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 Notice that every member of the totality is a cause that causes *due to another* or is *dependent*.

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 "No, because he assumes that the members of a chain where members are defined to be caused are in fact caused"

That is what you are essentially saying. A causal chain is a collection of caused and causing things.

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 So then, since the cause causes every member of the totality and is itself a member of the totality, then it causes itself. This is a contradiction.

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 It's warranted by
"because then it would be cause of itself. For the whole totality of dependent things is dependent.."
If the cause wasn't external but still a cause, then it would be in the totality. So it would be dependent. But the cause has to cause the whole totality!

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 *Where* is that assumed in the argument as a *premise*?

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@oanagnostes @sashameetsrus it's already not great in places where it's relatively more diverse.

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 Where is it assumed?

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 "Does the existence of sense data assume the existence of cause?"

Where do you see that in my imaged argument?

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 It's literally X or not X. What proof do you need?

[Parmenidean Palamite @parmpalamite]

@GloveAcademia @blessedmikko @YariLogos @Carloid1020 ....you're asking for me to prove that a true, logical dichotomy is a true, logical dichotomy?