I’m not suggesting logic is futile. Speaking of argumentative fallacies…
What I mean is that logic is merely a tool; not the end-all. In saying that logically, existence is contradictory, I mean to say logic in relation to causation mandates an eventual cause of all reality, and this is something logic cannot offer because it is confined to things that already exist. Thus it is limited.
Logically speaking, I know I exist. What came before me? My parents. And before them? Their parents. Before humanity? Dinosaurs. Before dinosaurs? Nothing but planets, stars and nebulae in the universe. Before the nebula that formed the earth?
Causation is logical; in fact, it’s bound to logic, for one cannot have an action without a prior cause. In this case, existence is contradictory. How can we exist when we are paradoxical? Are we to logically conclude that we came from nothing?
How about Creatio Ex Nihilo? Then one can ponder, as Aquinas did, who created God? Aquinas attempted to fuse logic with existence via causation and God being the uncaused cause, and I don’t consider that to be logically sound.
So using logic and counting back from C to B to A, what caused A? Therein lies a limit to logic. It is a useful tool to obtain knowledge, but it isn’t knowledge itself. Tools can be machines, but tools do not equal machines. Get it now? One can deduce on paper the following: 2 + X = 2 with X = 0. That’s a function of logic. But in relation to causation, it is severely limited.
Also, if you would like to take a crack at what caused A, be my guest. Speaking of popcorn, I’m popping some myself right now lol. I’m curious to see what the Mises community can come up with. What was the first cause of existence, and what caused it? Is there a first, uncaused cause?
This should be interesting.