I study math at uni and I was shocked realizing all my teachers use ubuntu on both their laptop and work desktop

    • frightful_hobgoblin
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Well Liebniz said it’s because of a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself, if that helps.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        No, because it’s circular logic. There’s no reason for a necessary being to exist before it does, and no evidence that one does in the real world.

        • frightful_hobgoblin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          No, because it’s circular logic.

          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

          There’s no reason for a necessary being to exist before it does

          Correct. It is necessary: it is self-causing. It does not stand upon a ‘reason’, unlike everything else in conditioned existence.

          to exist before it does

          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.

          and no evidence that one does in the real world.

          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?