Calling Out Blues Man: The First Cause must be Eternal

[ding]

Blues Man: The First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal) otherwise there would have been something before it to bring it about, so it couldn't be first if it didn't always exist (i.e. eternal). And if it didn't always exist then there would have been something else that caused it, so it couldn't be the first cause.

Ergo The First Cause must be Eternal

These are pretty simple statements because the logic is pretty simple.

 

[yidnar]

Blues Man: The First Cause must be had to always exist first (i.e. eternal) otherwise there would have been something before it to bring it about, so it couldn't be first if it didn't always exist (i.e. eternal). And if it didn't always exist then there would have been something else that caused it, so it couldn't be the first cause.

Ergo The First Cause must be Eternal

These are pretty simple statements because the logic is pretty simple.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man: The First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal) otherwise there would have been something before it to bring it about, so it couldn't be first if it didn't always exist (i.e. eternal). And if it didn't always exist then there would have been something else that caused it, so it couldn't be the first cause.

Ergo The First Cause must be Eternal

These are pretty simple statements because the logic is pretty simple.

Tautologies.

Prove your assumptions you base this line of thinking on.

Your main premise is that there are only 3 things that can exist

1 Matter
2 Energy
3 "Spirit"

and that this "spirit is the first cause of everything and you name this "spirit god.

Until you prove that these are the only 3 things that can possibly exist you cannot prove your assertions of the first cause being eternal

There is no argument that proves that your god is causa sui
And there is no argument that disproves that the natural world itself cannot be causa sui.

Hence my position is that we will never be able to know exactly what caused the universe to be.



Gee this sounds exactly like what we were doing in the other thread and will eventually end up in the same exact arguments.

So i guess it's not magic like you think it would be.

 

[ding]

Tautologies.

Prove your assumptions you base this line of thinking on.

Your main premise is that there are only 3 things that can exist

1 Matter
2 Energy
3 "Spirit"

and that this "spirit is the first cause of everything and you name this "spirit god.

Until you prove that these are the only 3 things that can possibly exist you cannot prove your assertions of the first cause being eternal

There is no argument that proves that your god is causa sui
And there is no argument that disproves that the natural world itself cannot be causa sui.

Hence my position is that we will never be able to know exactly what caused the universe to be.



Gee this sounds exactly like what we were doing in the other thread and will eventually end up in the same exact arguments.

So i guess it's not magic like you think it would be.

Actually the only premise being discussed is the First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal).

You have not explained how that is not true.

The First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal) otherwise there would have been something before it to bring it about, so it couldn't be first if it didn't always exist (i.e. eternal). And if it didn't always exist then there would have been something else that caused it, so it couldn't be the first cause.

Ergo The First Cause must be Eternal

 

[Blues Man]

Actually the only premise being discussed is the First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal).

You have not explained how that is not true.

It doesn't matter what you call it.

You haven't explained how it is true.

You just made up a stopper for an infinite regression.

if a person believes an infinite regression can exist then his argument is as valid as yours.

You are applying the rules you perceive of this universe to things that are not of this universe and since you can only know what is in this universe you cannot know what rules my apply to places other than this universe.

Therefore you make up something to explain what you cannot explain.

and we are back to the gods of the gaps.

Your problem is that you cannot and will not accept the fact that you cannot know something.

 

[ding]

It doesn't matter what you call it.

You haven't explained how it is true.

You just made up a stopper for an infinite regression.

if a person believes an infinite regression can exist then his argument is as valid as yours.

You are applying the rules you perceive of this universe to things that are not of this universe and since you can only know what is in this universe you cannot know what rules my apply to places other than this universe.

Therefore you make up something to explain what you cannot explain.

and we are back to the gods of the gaps.

Your problem is that you cannot and will not accept the fact that you cannot know something.

Still not addressing the subject. Prove the First Cause did not always exist using logic.

The First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal) otherwise there would have been something before it to bring it about, so it couldn't be first if it didn't always exist (i.e. eternal). And if it didn't always exist then there would have been something else that caused it, so it couldn't be the first cause.

Ergo The First Cause must be Eternal

 

[Blues Man]

Still not addressing the subject. Prove the First Cause did not always exist using logic.

It is impossible to prove something does not exist. In order to do so one must first know everything that has ever existed and everything that may exist in the future and that is impossible.

You are making up an explanation to solve the problem of an infinite regression.

That is all you are doing because you believe there cannot be an infinite regression.

 

[ding]

It is impossible to prove something does not exist. In order to do so one must first know everything that has ever existed and everything that may exist in the future and that is impossible.

You are making up an explanation to solve the problem of an infinite regression.

That is all you are doing because you believe there cannot be an infinite regression.

Still not addressing the subject. Prove the First Cause did not always exist using logic.

The First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal) otherwise there would have been something before it to bring it about, so it couldn't be first if it didn't always exist (i.e. eternal). And if it didn't always exist then there would have been something else that caused it, so it couldn't be the first cause.

Ergo The First Cause must be Eternal

 

[ding]

You haven't explained how it is true.

Sure I have. See?

The First Cause had to always exist (i.e. eternal) otherwise there would have been something before it to bring it about, so it couldn't be first if it didn't always exist (i.e. eternal). And if it didn't always exist then there would have been something else that caused it, so it couldn't be the first cause.

Ergo The First Cause must be Eternal

 

[ding]

Until you prove that these are the only 3 things that can possibly exist you cannot prove your assertions of the first cause being eternal

It's not required to prove the first cause is eternal. The first cause is undefined. It doesn't matter what it is. It only matters if there was something before it or if it popped into existence. If there was something before it then it can't be the first cause. If it popped into existence then it was caused and can't be the first cause.

 

[ding]

So... one of the conditions for a first cause is that the first cause had to always exist. There couldn't be anything before it and it couldn't have popped into existence. These are the conditions a first cause must meet.

 

[Blues Man]

Still not addressing the subject. Prove the First Cause did not always exist using logic.

You haven't proven it exists.

You merely entered into an infinite regression and declared that infinite regressions cannot exist so you invented a stopper.

As far as we humans are concerned the universe in infinite may be the causa sui and the big bang was the first cause making itself.

you want to add another level of complexity to the argument by introducing the idea that there exists one 3 possibilities

Matter
Energy
and a thing you call spirit or the first cause. The thing that created itself and that your causa sui exists somewhere else outside the universe.

You do not think you have to prove that spirit exists and you ask me to prove it does not.

 

[ding]

You haven't proven it exists.

You merely entered into an infinite regression and declared that infinite regressions cannot exist so you invented a stopper.

As far as we humans are concerned the universe in infinite may be the causa sui and the big bang was the first cause making itself.

you want to add another level of complexity to the argument by introducing the idea that there exists one 3 possibilities

Matter
Energy
and a thing you call spirit or the first cause. The thing that created itself and that your causa sui exists somewhere else outside the universe.

You do not think you have to prove that spirit exists and you ask me to prove it does not.

I don't need to prove it exists or even what it is. I only need to prove the condition it must meet to be the first cause.

 

[Blues Man]

It's not required to prove the first cause is eternal. The first cause is undefined. It doesn't matter what it is. It only matters if there was something before it or if it popped into existence. If there was something before it then it can't be the first cause. If it popped into existence then it was caused and can't be the first cause.

Of course it is.

Because I have to assume that the causa sui is in some place other than this universe and that is impossible to know. You cannot know that.

I can posit that the causa sui was the big bang itself and that as far as we are concerned this universe is eternal

 

[ding]

Of course it is.

Because I have to assume that the causa sui is in some place other than this universe and that is impossible to know. You cannot know that.

I can posit that the causa sui was the big bang itself and that as far as we are concerned this universe is eternal

No. You only need to establish the condition or requirement for something to be a first cause. Then you can eliminate things that don't meet that requirement. This isn't that complicated.

 

[ding]

I can posit that the causa sui was the big bang itself and that as far as we are concerned this universe is eternal

You can but before doing do so you need to establish the requirement for something (or anything) to be the first cause. Something you seem afraid to do.

 

[ding]

Because I have to assume that the causa sui is in some place other than this universe and that is impossible to know. You cannot know that.

Actually you don't. You only need to establish the requirement for something or anything to be considered the first cause. You are trying to skip steps.

 

[ding]

One of the conditions for a first cause is that the first cause had to always exist. There couldn't be anything before it and it couldn't have popped into existence. These are the conditions a first cause must meet.

Blues Man what conditions do you believe a first cause must meet?

 

[Blues Man]

No. You only need to establish the condition or requirement for something to be a first cause. Then you can eliminate things that don't meet that requirement. This isn't that complicated.

And if don't agree that there is a requirement for a first cause?

then what?

We are at an impasse once again

You're running from your entire argument that the first cause is this thing called spirit and that the only things that can exist in this universe or outside this universe are matter energy and spirit.

yet you have no way of knowing what if anything exists outside this universe because we are incapable of seeing far enough back in time to know what happened before this universe came to be.

So i can just as easily say the universe caused itself as you can say something else caused the universe

and once again we are at an impasse.

You want to lead this int an Ah Hah you have to admit god exists and you can't and that bugs the shit out of you.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually you don't. You only need to establish the requirement for something or anything to be considered the first cause. You are trying to skip steps.

And if I don't see that as a requirement?

You are trying to apply what you see in this universe to things that are not of this universe