Vlunderer,
Bilgeside
As usual you are converting my maybes into fundamentalist, brook no argument, pronouncements.....now I'm not saying that should come with some kind of admission into a therapeutic institutions but that help is probably available for your condition.
Now....The point is Shaker is saying that the universe isn't caused and it isn't uncaused.
He must be alluding therefore to a third way. I just want to know what it is.
On balance I think the evidence is that it did have a beginning although theism has worked perfectly well during the Hoyle steady state hypothesis because there is always the question why something and not nothing.
So there we have it.
The real problem for people like yourself is for the universe to be uncaused would require nature to have abandoned naturalism's dependence on cause and effect. People like yourself would have to concoct a supernatural explanation for the universe namely uncausedness.
Also if you can apply the quality of being uncaused to one thing you cannot disallow it for say, a God.
That suits your detractors Bilgeside because it gets rid of a load of Dawkinsian arguments like....who created God.
Indeed whatever third way to explain the universe Shaker comes up with.....That could equally apply to God.
Finally for you to eliminate causation AND noncausation you would have to shuffle like Outrider shuffled and even someone above your intellectual payscale like him ended up turdpolishing.....he couldn't quite convince that he wasn't actually arguing for uncreated matter.
Any way, Ladies and Gentlemen....I present to you....The Hillside cosmological shuffle...TAKE IT BLUE!
Oh dear. I knew I couldn’t fix stupid, but I had hoped to educate it a little.
Seems some people are pathologically undeducable though…
This’ll be wasted on you, but the cosmological argument begins with “Everything that had a beginning…”. Before you get to “caused/uncaused” you need to demonstrate that there
was a beginning to which the caused/uncaused question could apply. One of the stupidities of the argument is that when someone says “causation isn’t relevant unless you can show a “before”” the less bright will say something like, “ha, but everything else has a beginning and a cause so how come you’re doing special pleading for the universe then?”
It’s the “had a beginning” bit that’s problematic for you here though. How do you know that the universe
did have a beginning? How would
before this "beginning" even
mean anything when time and space are part of the same continuum (called “spacetime”)?
Maybe the universe is infinite. Maybe time isn’t linear in any case. Maybe there was a “before” and a quantum borrowing event occurred. Maybe, maybe, maybe…
The point is that you don’t know, and nor does anyone else – all we have is competing hypotheses. Just assuming though a “before” and therefore introducing the question of causation is Paley’s watch-level thinking: “a watch is complex and designed; an animal is complex, therefore it must have been designed too”/ “stuff I observe came into being by a causal agency; I observe the universe, therefore the universe must have come into being and had a causal agency too”.
No doubt you’ll continue to miss the point entirely with yet more trolling, but there it is nonetheless. Establish your premise
first and only then will the question be a valid one.
Good luck with that!
