Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that There must be a first cause of being.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
An infinite regress of causes is not logically contradictory, as Hume argued—necessity is a psychological habit, not a metaphysical fact.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If every event requires a prior cause, positing an uncaused first cause violates the very causal principle invoked to reach it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Buddhists like Nagarjuna demonstrate that dependent origination—causation without a first cause—is metaphysically coherent and empirically adequate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Unity imposed on being presupposes a prior ontological framework, making the 'first cause of oneness' regress-prone rather than foundational.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
There must be a first cause of oneness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Bringing something to be means imposing unity of a certain kind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.