[kosta50]

So long as the conclusion is not contradicted by observation (and the logic is correct) it stands as a viable argument.

His conclusion is not valid because it violates his axiom that no object (no thing) can cause itself.

Observation is one source of knowledge, but not the exclusive one.

Observation is the only form of objective (phenomenological) knowledge and it's method of discovery is a posteri reasoning. On the other hand, a priori approach leads to ontological arguments and subjective knowledge. The two cannot be conflated.

[D-fendr]

His conclusion is not valid because it violates his axiom that no object (no thing) can cause itself.

Again, it's UNcaused.

Observation is the only form of objective…

I was referring in this case to reason/logic as a source of knowledge.