METAPhilosophy: Inverse Causal

ARGUMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

The commonly known argument from philosophy originates from the cycle of causality (Kitab Kifayat al-'Awam - Muhammad Al Fudholi, called Daur Tasalsul), fundamentally stating …

• Causeless Effect. If we regress infinitely from effect to cause, then everything is merely an effect without a cause (since what is considered a cause is actually an effect of a previous cause).

• Causeless Effect Contradicts Caused Effect. And the absence of contradiction is only possible if there is a cause that is not an effect, so its effect is caused. And a cause that is not an effect is a causeless cause.

ARGUMENT OF METAPHILOSOPHY

I call it "INVERSE CAUSAL"

Although it fundamentally involves the understanding of endless causality of cause and effect, the solutions are different. As follows:

From cause to effect, the number of effects increases; when ordered backward from effect to cause, the number of effects decreases.

If retracing from effect to cause increases the number of effects, then it means the backward tracing is not just from the present to the past, but also from the past to the present.

That is a logical consequence if we affirm 'backward from effect to cause, increases the number of effects.

This means there are two directions of backward tracing, from the present to the past and from the past to the present.

If the logical consequence is that there are two directions of backward tracing, then backward tracing from effect to cause in both directions will meet at a single point, which is the singular cause.

• That is a logical consequence if there is an addition of effects to the past.

If this consequence (addition of effects to the past) is rejected, then retracing from effect to cause will decrease the number of effects, which means reducing to the primary cause.

"So, whichever way you look at it, it still affirms that effects stop at a singular cause.

Rebuttal:

That many effects come from many causes?

That there is more than one causeless cause?"

❇️ Irrefutable that there is a stopping point at one or several primary causes.

Although, the argument does not necessarily assert the existence of one singular cause, but still affirms that effects stop at a primary cause

CERTAINTY

After you understand this, or? You feel enlightened by other arguments, or? Through spiritual approaches or any other means.

Still, do not get caught up in the concept of total perfection.

Every argument has its weaknesses. And this argument cannot affirm the lacking aspects of the polemic on divinity. So does this mean the argument fails? No, but our demand for a perfect argument is what makes us feel failed.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT CAN 100% PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Even empirical evidence does not fully explain everything. This means that while its foundation may be universal absolutes, the total structure of truth is also built on elements of belief (not 100% detailed by universal absolutes).

FACTS & PROBABILITY

You cannot even expect everything to be answered 100% without any mystery. But at least when the probability of facts has exceeded half or more of the average human lifespan, it can be relied upon. The issue of things changing after 1000 years is beyond the context unless your lifespan is eternal.

So, with the limitation of time, we indeed have to make decisions based on facts whose truth does not need to last for millions of years, but rather measured realistically over half or more of a human lifespan.

Again, you cannot even expect everything to be answered 100% without any mystery.