So you continue to assert. But you haven't said why. Again: causation is a temporal notion. The fact that you take the notion and then say it has to exist even when time doesn't (and then to call this atemporal causation) doesn't make it true, nor does it mean you aren't buiding castles on air. The argument of causation states that an event must be proceeded by another event which caused it. In other words, it is fundamentally based in a notion of linear time. Take away time, and there is no "preceded by" to cause the event. Ergo, no need for causation.
Causation IS a temporal action. The first event (the big bang) was the first cause, and that event took place at T0. No one is denying this. I never said that causation wasn't a temporal notion. What I said was, the first event (the big bang) was caused by a atemporal agent. The first event took place in time, at the BEGINNING of time, and therefore, IN TIME.
Proposed centuries ago before we our current understanding of the relationship between space and time, the origins of the universe, etc. Causality, determinism, etc., have all been addressed in much more nuanced ways since. But since you bring it up, what philosophers, or philosophical texts, have you read which address modern arguments and counter-arguments to this notion of causality and the necessity of a "first cause"?
The universe began to exist. This event requires a CAUSE, just like any other event. Why are you questioning this? Since when has it been cool to question brute facts. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, which mean that things dont just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing. I think that the evidence for ID has become so evident, that people who just refuse to believe are just stuck with denying brute facts. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Nothing can "begin" to exist without a cause. Why do we have to discuss this????
First, that there all events must have a cause, even given time. Second (and much easier) that the idea every cause must have an effect is dependent on time. It's a linear view of events. One thing happens, which causes another. Without time, this is impossible. Nothing can "happen" in any sense that we know of or understand. All you are doing is taking an argument based on a linear view of events through time, and claiming it holds true when time does not exist. But there is no reason to suppose it does, even if it exists within time. Finally, with the introcution of special and general relativity and our current understanding of spacetime, arguments which deal with causality even within "time" have become considerably more nuanced.
As I said, everything that begins to exist has a cause. It doesn't matter how you try to explain it. Nothing can "begin to happen" without a prexisting causal condition allowing it to happen. Yes, it happens in time. Got it, but it happens. There is nothing you can say, so why are you wasting both of our time trying to justify that kind of reasoning??? Do you want to deny ID that much???
That's not an explanation for what "atemporal causation" is or why we should imagine such a thing exists.
Oh my goodness. Dude, time began to exist.
IF TIME BEGAN TO EXIST, THE ONLY THING THAT COULD HAVE GIVEN TIME ITS BEGINNING, IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TEMPORAL (ATEMPORAL). THERE IS NO OTHER WAY AROUND THIS. SO STOP ASKING THESE PATHETIC QUESTIONS. Time had a beginning, but once it comes to using your mind to figure out "what could have caused time", you suddenly just stop all thinking and make it seem as if it isn't possible. Is it because you know its implications? I dont know, but please stop asking these ridiculous questions. Please.
According to Aquinas anyway.
Not just Aquinas, but any logical and reasonable person. Everyone knows that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Things dont just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing. I dont think anyone on this earth that is sane right now is worrying about a horse popping in to their living room right now. Why are we discussing this??
Hardly. It's more a committment to intellectual honesty. You call it "postulating the impossible" to imagine the universe simply "beginning" ex nihilo but have no difficulty with an eternal creator who divinely made it happen and then stepped into time and just leave it at that. To me, that sounds like rejecting one "absurdigy" for another at least as equally impossible or incomprehinsible explanation.
Lets compare the two. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, we may not know how he did it, but we can say that the magician caused the rabbit to appear. There is a prexisting causal agent that explains why the rabbit appears. That is my view. But on your view, there is no magician, the rabbit just pops in to being, uncaused, and out of nothing. You may not like either scenario, but guess what, everything hangs on one of these two scenarios. You are just choosing the one that will allow you to not answer to a higher authority. That is the real reason why people dont believe in God, because they know that once they believe, they will be accountable to him. So its best for them to keep denying him and believing in absurdities than to believe in him. That is the real reason.
I'm not sure you understand what it means, or why it was never meant to lead to a contradiction nor is it thought to.
So instead of commenting on the Paradox, you attack my knowledge on the issue. Hilbert was showing how life would be if we lived in a world where infinity could exist in reality.Wow. With all due respect, it was a pleasure talking to you, for the most part. But we dont have anything else to discuss. I cant keep going over this with you. Right now you are ducking and dodging the issues. Nothing else for me to say to you.
