To be more precise either we have to show phenomena and...

To be more precise either we have to show phenomena and secondly need a cause and then generalize this finding to include all phenomenon needs a cause or we must imagine certain states and conditions in which we could prove by experience that is certain thing is first of all a phenomenon and secondly does not need a cause is falsifiable and a posterior, therefore in both approaches we must initially show by experience that certain thing or things are phenomena.

However, we can easily prove that, firstly, this cannot be done through experience alone and without employing a prior proposition and secondly, that it entails a vicious circle. To explain, we should say that being a phenomenon means being created in time.

This in turn means that the thing in question must be initially non-existent and then later on become existent while we con not perceive the existence to nonexistence of things through the sense (aided or unaided ) This is so since perception require two preconditions: firstly, the object in question must leave a trace of its effect on the perceiving organ - of course this effects is going to be corporeal and must pass though different stages until it reaches the brain - and secondly the spirit must perceive this effects.