I must point out that Ive proposed an opposing metaphysical hypothesis, not a claim (I don't believe it is possible to know such things in absolute terms), while it is you who are making an assertion. If you claimed to be able to leap across a river, fifteen metres in width, then the onus would be on you to show that you can in fact clear that distance. It wouldnt be up to me to carry out tests, apply physics, use biological inspired models or attempt to jump the river myself in order to disprove it!
You are certainly correct to say a circular system of causation cannot be regressive. But if a thing is self-existent, having the power within itself, then expansion (or contraction for that matter) is perfectly plausible, since all causes and effects are self-contained.
Now if I may refer to Occams Razor, it seems that in this discussion entities are being multiplied beyond their need, because the universe doesnt demand an explanation for the way it exists. If the universe is self-sustaining then why does it have to be sustained further? The answer is that it doesnt, unless there is an ideological need for one!
And what does it mean to say the universe has a starting point? Did matter appear from nothing?
You have to really ask yourself on this and apply it to your own argument also. Is it not a contradiction to say that matter always existed yet that matter didnt come from nothing? That in itself is a contradiction. This is the same thing 9/10ths argued.
One physical event explaining another physical event is not a beginning. There has to be an evident beginning before it can be said that the universe began, as at the point of existing where before there was nothing.
Thats not totally true. There are some things we dont have an evident beginning for [yet]. The background noise helped to seal the deal with the universe having a beginning. Thats one evidence.
The Supreme Being is the Supreme Being is true, regardless of whether there is in fact such a being. But by all means use God or any other monotheistic term that you consider to be the right one to describe the supposed deity.
I just used whatever to help those who I am debating to understand better. The word God usually instantly turns off those who dont believe in one and they become instantly defensive.
If we agree, purely for the sake of argument, that cause is necessary, then weve established that nothing exists without being caused to exist. Now if we want to say Oh, but that principle applies only to the material world we then have to show there exists a non-material world to which the principle doesnt apply!
Well it still applies to the non-material world aka spiritual world. At least from what I grab from the bible causation still applies there also yet the same principle stands that the USP or God, the beginning cause of everything, still cannot have something before it.
There is nothing in experience that demonstrates that anything is externally caused, or that there exists a God or a supernatural agency that created the world.
Not entirely true. From our perspective life came to earth through comets and asteroids which from that it would seem as if externally caused, [hence that is why we have alien stories also]. Thats just one example.
The world, however, does exist; and if the essence of the material world is eternal then all causes and effects are answerable to the worlds self-existent nature.
But you are forgetting what caused the world to be in the first place. Things happened [or caused] to earth to make it self-sustaining [comets, asteroids, moon, the pull of gravity from all the bodies in the solar system etc etc] These are all causes that have produced the effect of what our earth is now. Our world is not self-existent.
An ultimate starting point is just a term, which requires an explanation. Ultimate means many things such as the first, the last, the greatest, the smallest, the nearest, the furthest, etc, etc. So we need to give the argument its proper appellation, which is the First, or Uncaused Cause. But even here we still need an explanation, because we need to show how a cause can itself be uncaused!
Besides, you are arguing the same thing as 9/10ths, saying the universe is then eternal, the uncaused cause, nothing brought it into existence. This logic doesnt even stand up to your own argument.
Simply by saying it is uncaused, or the first of all causes, proves nothing;
This is what you guys are saying of an eternal universe. Nothing caused it to be. It is the uncaused cause. This doesnt even stand up to your own argument. How do you explain that the universe is the uncaused cause then?
its not telling us what it is or why it is excused from being an effect.
Same thing applies to an eternal universe.
So there has to be a reason to except a cause from being uncaused.
Then Explain this for an eternal universe please.
Something has to exist before the concept of an uncaused cause can exist.
When applied to this universe, you are correct. Thats why an eternal universe concept doesnt stand. When applied to God it just cant because it would defy all logic to what a supreme being is.
And the only thing that can exist prior to the action of anything being un-causally caused is something that is unconditioned, upon which the conditioned depends for its existence.
Sounds here you are supporting my argument.
But if it is logically possible for a thing to be the unconditioned, uncaused cause (which it is, as no contradiction is implied in conceiving a thing to have always existed) then matter can also be the unconditioned, uncaused cause of subsequently existing matter.
So If matter creates matter, [thus making it eternal, self-existing] where did the first matter come from? Did it create itself? Matter is conditioned. It works only within laws that something ELSE had to program it with. Matter doesnt just operate on its own freewill and decides to follow a law. It stands that something made matter to react a certain way when certain conditions are met.
Scripture isnt proof for no other Gods.
Then what would be?
