[Reach]

Originally Posted by ieatyourlvllol

I suppose I'll join in as well, although since it'd take me hours to write up most of my thoughts on the topic at hand, I'll just add a bit of tinder to the campfire.

A problem I see is that if we're operating under the assumption that something existent must necessarily have risen from something else existent, there seems to be an infinite regress which must either have a coincident (reference) beginning and end - a gestational cycle - or at some point lead to an object without a predecessor. The former seems plausible, at least until we consider that the resulting implication is that an object's source of existence is itself, which not only violates the presiding assumption, but also seems logically absurd. And yet, the alternative seems to defy a system that is governed by empirically consistent physical and logical laws. Here we've reached a quandary that remains a heated point of contention amongst contemporary philosophers. It's likely to stay that way, seeing as how we evidently cannot either prove or disprove the fundamental ideologies at stake. Without knowing even whether or not logic is the ultimate parameter, we're left with basically two options (pardon the incoming generalization) - faith in logic...or logic in faith.

tl;dr it's a mystery

EDIT: ohoho Mister Rubiks Shuffle It Jr. the 3rd...don't even get me started on the whole determinism vs. libertarianism debate

P.S. - Reach, you might as well rename this thread "Metaphysics"

Well, I wouldn't mind someone opening up another thread for this discussion. With that said, I'd like this to remain the 'IQ' thread thank you very much :P

Would anyone be interested in making another thread?

I'll make one quick comment:

or at some point lead to an object without a predecessor. The former seems plausible, at least until we consider that the resulting implication is that an object's source of existence is itself, which not only violates the presiding assumption, but also seems logically absurd.

Why logically absurd? Unless you want to argue something came from nothing, which I won't, there must exist some set of parameters which are irreducibly complex, i.e. if they were less complex there would be the absence of everything entirely.

So, it exists by virtue of the fact that less than that couldn't exist. I'm not sure I like your use of 'source of existence', since I wouldn't argue existence has any 'sources' per say but exists by virtue of something being there, and I don't see why this would be logically inconsistent.

don't even get me started on the whole determinism vs. libertarianism debate

Oh come on, it ended long ago with the experiments in neuroscience demonstrating the outcome of our thoughts/actions is determined prior to our will to act/think. It's determinism, baby.