Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Shad]

- The "first" cause has no beginning . spacetime itself is an effect. space and time only exist within (because of) the spacetime effect, beyond that effect, neither space nor time has any meaning. The question about the cause for the causeless "first" cause is illogical. The word "before" itself doesn't apply, especially in absence of time (an effect).

Casuation requires time otherwise there is no way to figure out cause and effect. Without time how does anything act? How does creation occur without time as it is by definition a change. You undermined your own argument. God is timeless as you claim

I am supporting the concept that the existence of God is a logical necessity.

You point quoted above renders your argument moot by your own words.

- the first cause has no beginning ""first"". Nothing is before. Before doesn't apply.

God is timeless thus you refuted your own argument.

the first cause influences/causes effects but no effect can have an influence on the first cause because the first cause is not an effect and not subject to causation. The first cause is necessarily "eternal unchangeable".

If causation does not apply then you argument for first cause fails by your own point above.

-since there is nothing to influence/change the first cause , then the specific beginning (creation point) of an effect is only governed by a specific influence exerted by the first cause.

Without time there is no causation, you refuted your own argument again.

- every thing is a limited effect except for the first cause. That means, nothing is of the likeness of the first cause. every effect has a beginning and subject to limits. the first cause has no beginning and not subject to any limits/causation.

Without time there is no first cause, again you have refuted your own argument.

To summarize, the first cause is eternal, unchangeable, has unlimited power, he is the cause for all effects and non of the effects is of his likeness.

Quran said, "There is nothing of the likeness of him" (Ash-Shura 11)

Quran said, " Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him." (Al-Ikhlas 1-4)

The prophet said, "whatever (example) crossed your mind, God is different"

I don't expect you to see or agree with what I said. Others will. The issue is not the capacity. It's the willingness.

Defining something into existence is nonsense. Proof by logic does not make anything exist. The issue is not willingness but the ability to spot sophistry in such arguments. Hence why objections to such argument are basic philosophy 101.

 

[Zosimus]

The argument used is a classical of arguments for God. You also argued for such a case in this very comment.

I did nothing of the sort. You have abysmal reading comprehension skills.

Definition games as in define god as you, and theists want, rather than based on information of what it is. I can define a cat as uncaused because I have defined a cat in this manner.

You can define a cat as uncaused, but this can be experimentally falsified. Can you experimentally falsify the claim that God is uncaused?

You never extend this to the universe, nature, etc, only God. Hence my above point, you stop at the point you agree with rather than not.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

There is either a first cause or there is not is claimed to be tautology.

It's not claimed to be a tautology. These are the rules of logic. Do you reject logic?

Defining God as uncaused does not make it so. It is a definition game, nothing more.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You might as well claim that defining insects as six-legged invertebrate arthropods is a "definition game" that "does not make it so" and run around covering your eyes and stopping your ears so you see and hear no evil.

The universe is uncaused, my definition game, thus is tautology. See how failed your argument actually is?

Even if true, this claim would in no way invalidate my point.

Again this is a classic setup by theists in which it is either God or infinite regression. A point you made clear previously. Definition games again to force something into existence based on a definition only. At best God fulfills the first cause role but this is subjective opinion only.

Do you think that if you rant something multiple times that people will be more convinced?

There could be multiple uncaused causes. You only care about God so only comment on it. You backpedaled to causes now rather than God.

This statement in no way refutes what I said. I said:

EITHER there is at least one uncaused cause
OR there are no uncaused causes.

So no matter how much you scream "There you could be multiple uncaused causes" you have not even begun to refute my point. If anything, you are confirming my opinion of your abysmal reading comprehension skills.

Defining something into existence is nonsense. Proof by logic fails.

You reject logic, but use logic to argue against logic. I get it.

No it was God or infinite regression. You are backpedaling. You didn't even entertain another option since it does not help your arguments for God.

Since I have not argued for or against God, I don't see what your point is. I have never met such a knee-jerk atheist as you. It's amazing.

The definition games being played in which only God is your acceptable answer.

Again you abandon your radical skepticism as it would render your arguments moot. The first cause argument is also checked by the trillemma but you abandon this point since it no longer useful for your argument. Causation is based on induction thus faces the problem of induction, again another point you abandon when it no longer helps you argument.

By labeling something an effect, you are claiming that it has a cause. That's the definition of cause and effect. We've been over this.

 

[NoorNoor]

Casuation requires time otherwise there is no way to figure out cause and effect. Without time how does anything act? How does creation occur without time as it is by definition a change. You undermined your own argument. God is timeless as you claim

how is that undermining my argument? neither causation nor time is relevant to the first cause.
Causation requires time (in a physical realm). As I said, The first cause is not subject to any causation, influence or limits.

God is timeless thus you refuted your own argument.

God is timeless because God is not an effect and not subject to causation. Space and time where forced to existence at the very beginning of the physical world at the big bang (creation point). The limits of spacetime apply only within this physical realm. Every thing in the physical realm is a limited cause/effect. These limits don't apply on the first cause.

If causation does not apply then you argument for first cause fails by your own point above.

Causation applies to every thing with the exception of the first cause (the unique beginning of the chain). Otherwise you continue in an infinite regression.

Without time there is no causation, you refuted your own argument again.

Exactly, without time there is no causation. God is not subject to causation.

God's influence to exert an effect is not the same as a limited effect functioning as a cause for subsequent effect. First cause is free of any (none existent) limits including time. Beyond the first cause all effects have a beginning and subject to causation and the limit of time.

Without time there is no first cause, again you have refuted your own argument.

We exist in a realm of effects. We don't understand what is beyond this realm. Maybe we can't imagine it but we can understand that there was a point when neither time nor space existed. Nonetheless, the universe appeared at the big bang in absence of time. After this point, every thing followed the physical limits. Limited effects became causes for other effects and all function (within spacetime) in a strict adherence to the physical limits.

Defining something into existence is nonsense. Proof by logic does not make anything exist.

You say "Proof by logic does not make anything exist" and I say "logic is the only reference that can point to a fact". Observation and data would be totally meaningless without the logical assessment that makes it considered as evidence.

People have seen apples falling off trees for so long. Its an observation that didn't mean much to them. Newton applied logic to proof the gravitational force to exist through logical assessment of the data.

Logic is the only common ground (reference) that allows us to communicate. Without logic, any communication would be either impossible or meaningless.

The issue is not willingness but the ability to spot sophistry in such arguments. Hence why objections to such argument are basic philosophy 101

We can proof through logic the truth of what is beyond our realm of understanding/imagination. Can you imagine infinity? It's something without limits of any kind. It's unimaginable. We always look for boundaries to contain every thing. Boundaries of time and space. But do you believe that infinity exist? God is the absolute infinity. God is the eternal beyond any limits of time/space.

 

[viole]

how is that undermining my argument? neither causation nor time is relevant to the first cause.
Causation requires time (in a physical realm). As I said, The first cause is not subject to any causation, influence or limits.


God is timeless because God is not an effect and not subject to causation. Space and time where forced to existence at the very beginning of the physical world at the big bang (creation point). The limits of spacetime apply only within this physical realm. Every thing in the physical realm is a limited cause/effect. These limits don't apply on the first cause.

Causation applies to every thing with the exception of the first cause (the unique beginning of the chain). Otherwise you continue in an infinite regression.


Exactly, without time there is no causation. God is not subject to causation.

God's influence to exert an effect is not the same as a limited effect functioning as a cause for subsequent effect. First cause is free of any (none existent) limits including time. Beyond the first cause all effects have a beginning and subject to causation and the limit of time.


We exist in a realm of effects. We don't understand what is beyond this realm. Maybe we can't imagine it but we can understand that there was a point when neither time nor space existed. Nonetheless, the universe appeared at the big bang in absence of time. After this point, every thing followed the physical limits. Limited effects became causes for other effects and all function (within spacetime) in a strict adherence to the physical limits.


You say "Proof by logic does not make anything exist" and I say "logic is the only reference that can point to a fact". Observation and data would be totally meaningless without the logical assessment that makes it considered as evidence.

People have seen apples falling off trees for so long. Its an observation that didn't mean much to them. Newton applied logic to proof the gravitational force to exist through logical assessment of the data.

Logic is the only common ground (reference) that allows us to communicate. Without logic, any communication would be either impossible or meaningless.



We can proof through logic the truth of what is beyond our realm of understanding/imagination. Can you imagine infinity? It's something without limits of any kind. It's unimaginable. We always look for boundaries to contain every thing. Boundaries of time and space. But do you believe that infinity exist? God is the absolute infinity. God is the eternal beyond any limits of time/space.

Can time be caused?

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is an illogical question. You are asking, what causeless cause caused the (causeless) first cause? You are confusing first cause with infinite regress.

-only effects need a cause. The first cause is not an effect (doesn't need a cause).

- If we reject infinite regression, then the chain has a beginning. The beginning is the first cause. Being a cause (not an effect), then it's causeless. Being causeless, then there is nothing to exert any influence/impose any limits on him. Being causeless, then he has no beginning. Being the first in the chain, then nothing precedes him (unless you continue in an infinite regression). The first cause is the absolute end of the chain.

- The "first" cause has no beginning . spacetime itself is an effect. space and time only exist within (because of) the spacetime effect, beyond that effect, neither space nor time has any meaning. The question about the cause for the causeless "first" cause is illogical. The word "before" itself doesn't apply, especially in absence of time (an effect).

It is not. First cause arguments go one of two ways. You're either arguing that "God" is the first cause or that "God" caused the first cause, separating "him" from everything else. It doens't matter how you cut it up. You're calling the first cause god. I'm asking why.

Your comment about Spacetime originating at the moment of "creation" is something that I'll agree with. There is no time before time. But that's not something that is part of your first cause argument.
You cannot logically argue for something to exist outside of all existence, and then attribute qualities to it, based on regressed reasoning alone. The leap you are making from First Cause to a deity with character traits is the problem.

Your use of the pronoun "him" in describing this imaginary Causer shows your bias and presupposition.

Sure. This is the purpose of the argument. The existence of God.

Obviously. So please explain how and why you are attributing characteristics and traits to an unsupported "him" that supposedly exists outside of both time and space.

Please explain why that "Causer" cannot simply be meaningless chance.
Please explain why meaningless chance is not just as likely as a benevolent preexisting creator.
And for that matter, why isn't the Magic Cosmic Elephant just as likely?

I am supporting the concept that the existence of God is a logical necessity.

So far, you aren't doing that. You're just filling in knowledge gaps with "wild speculation" and claiming it to be a logical necessity.

No, Rather than meaningless illogical speculations, here is what we could know about the first cause through logic:

- the first cause has no beginning ""first"". Nothing is before. Before doesn't apply.

- every thing other than the first cause, is an effect. effects (such as space, time and physical laws) do not limit or affect the first cause in any way.

- the first cause influences/causes effects but no effect can have an influence on the first cause because the first cause is not an effect and not subject to causation. The first cause is necessarily "eternal unchangeable".

-the first cause has the force to exert an influence. The magnitude of that force would be (at a minimum) proportionate to the magnitude of the effects. Not all effects are known. But since nothing can cause/impose any limits on the first cause, then the power through which effects are forced into existence is necessarily limitless.

-since there is nothing to influence/change the first cause , then the specific beginning (creation point) of an effect is only governed by a specific influence exerted by the first cause.

- every thing is a limited effect except for the first cause. That means, nothing is of the likeness of the first cause. every effect has a beginning and subject to limits. the first cause has no beginning and not subject to any limits/causation.

- if you think about your example "Invisible Purple Cosmic Elephant" or any other example of any sort that my cross your mind. You will see that It's a meaning that involves multiple components. Visibility and color has to do with reflection of light (electromagnetic waves) and how is it specifically perceived by a brain. Cosmic is an indication of a space that encompasses an object. Elephant is an example of a living creature like many others. All of these are limited effects (Limited with respect to its containment in time, space and it's dependency on other causes/effects). It has nothing to do with the first cause that is totally free of limits/causation. We and every thing in our realm are (limited) effects. Whatever crosses our mind or can be imagined, is something that belongs to the realm of effects. Nothing within the effects realm is of the likeness of the first cause. The first cause is unique. The likeness of the first cause, can not be imagined.

1. Fine. Let's start there. First Cause has no beginning...

2. Fine.

3. A bit repetitive aren't we? But, again, fine.

4. The Watchmaker argument... please continue...

5. Read this carefully, please, as it's your own words.
"We and every thing in our realm are (limited) effects. Whatever crosses our mind or can be imagined, is something that belongs to the realm of effects."

...Including the sociologically predisposed need to attribute human qualities to all aspects of our lives for the purpose of understanding... You're placing a "him" outside the bonds of all existence, crediting him with powers, and logically arguing for the existence of "him" because you need to. Of course the Invisible Purple Cosmic Elephant is a farce. So is the magic benevolent man that sneezes universes into existence on a whim and gets WAY to involved with Middle Eastern socio-economic problems for some reason.

If I made the Watchmaker argument that you're using here for myself, it would seem like a pretty solid argument that I was the god of the watch, wouldn't it? Everything that happened within that watch would have come from my mind and my hands. I could create the most imaginative and complex watch known to man, and from the perspective of everything in that watch, I would be the Genesis. I would be the First Cause... But you and I know that none of that would be true. Perspective changes everything, doesn't it? Instead of assuming an answer based on logical arguments, we can observe that I am not, in fact, the first cause of anything. That every single things that I've ever done is the result of another cause and effect series, as you've suggested.

When we observe the Universe, and develop better technologies to answer more and more complex questions, we begin to move the point of beginning further and further back. This observational approach to existence is what moved us from thinking that we were the center of the Universe to understanding, as you're arguing here, that we are simply an effect caused by seemingly infinite previous causes. When the point of understanding of the First Cause is moved, do you have to adjust your logical argument for the existence of God? If it does, what does that say about your logical argument? What does it say about your God? And logically, how do you not consider that "moving the goal posts"?

If I want to argue for the existence of anything, I can certainly use logical arguments. But would you be OK with me ONLY using logical arguments?

To summarize, the first cause is eternal, unchangeable, has unlimited power, he is the cause for all effects and non of the effects is of his likeness.

Quran said, "There is nothing of the likeness of him" (Ash-Shura 11)

Quran said, " Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him." (Al-Ikhlas 1-4)

The prophet said, "whatever (example) crossed your mind, God is different"

I don't expect you to see or agree with what I said. Others will. The issue is not the capacity. It's the willingness.

Like I said, bias and presupposition.

Constantly moving the goal posts makes for an argument that is seemingly eternal. Saying that God is different that whatever example crosses your mind is a perfect example of moving the goal posts... It's great for faith... It's terrible for actually discussing aspects of reality.

 

[NoorNoor]

It is not. First cause arguments go one of two ways. You're either arguing that "God" is the first cause or that "God" caused the first cause

The intention is the "absolute first". nothing precedes the "absolute first". to be clear, I am arguing that God is the absolute first cause (which is not an effect) and that God caused the first (physical) effect which is both an effect and a cause for subsequent effects. Only effects require causation but the end of the chain is a cause (first cause) which is not subject to causation.

separating "him" from everything else. It doens't matter how you cut it up. You're calling the first cause god. I'm asking why

-God is the origin/cause for every thing in existence. Nothing precedes God.
God is not subject to causation, yet causes every effect.

-The first cause is the origin/cause for every thing in existence. Nothing precedes The first cause. The first cause is not subject to causation, yet causes every effect.

- first cause=God.

Your comment about Spacetime originating at the moment of "creation" is something that I'll agree with. There is no time before time. But that's not something that is part of your first cause argument.

If space, time and everything physical, originated at the moment of creation, then the cause for the moment of creation is necessarily non-physical. The cause and the process through which the physical world originated is something totally different than any thing that we can experience in the physical world. In other words, the moment of creation is an effect, the cause for that effect is non-physical and not subject to the limits of space, time or any of the physical limits that were originated at the creation point. Being not subject to the limit of time, then the cause doesn't have a beginning, not changeable, being with no beginning, necessarily means Not subject to causation. Being not subject to causation, necessarily means "first cause".

You cannot logically argue for something to exist outside of all existence, and then attribute qualities to it, based on regressed reasoning alone. The leap you are making from First Cause to a deity with character traits is the problem.

Your use of the pronoun "him" in describing this imaginary Causer shows your bias and presupposition.

The character traits are logical necessities, first, no beginning, no causation, unchangeable, capable of exerting an influence/causing effects. Unique, Limitless, non-physical.

I knew you wouldn't like "him"but I don't like "it".

Obviously. So please explain how and why you are attributing characteristics and traits to an unsupported "him" that supposedly exists outside of both time and space.

See above. It's all logical necessities. If you don't agree with any of it, please explain why

Please explain why that "Causer" cannot simply be meaningless chance.

Chance necessarily requires set of pre-existing conditions or "prerequisites". Without the conditions that create/cause the element of chance, there is no chance. It wouldn't have any meaning. Nothing precedes the first cause. The element of chance doesn't exist.

I used the following example before:
If you throw the dice, we have an example of chance. This chance requires, dice, someone to throw it, surface to throw it on and a gravitational field so the dice would balance against the surface. If you have all the "prerequisites", then you have a verified chance of "1/6". If you don't have dice, some one to throw it, surface or gravitational field, then what chances would be possible? In absence of the defining elements of chance, any assumed or imagined chance would be meaningless.

Please explain why meaningless chance is not just as likely as a benevolent preexisting creator.
And for that matter, why isn't the Magic Cosmic Elephant just as likely?

If space, time and every thing physical, originated at the creation point. Then the cosmic elephant or any thing involving space, time or physical elements, is not possible beyond the creation point.

Of course the Invisible Purple Cosmic Elephant is a farce. So is the magic benevolent man that sneezes universes into existence on a whim

No one said any thing about a man or magic, we are talking about a unique non-physical entity beyond our limits that can be recognized through logic.

and gets WAY to involved with Middle Eastern socio-economic problems for some reason.

This is an irrelevant statement. Do you imply that theism is limited to the Middle East?

Instead of assuming an answer based on logical arguments, we can observe that I am not, in fact, the first cause of anything. That every single things that I've ever done is the result of another cause and effect series, as you've suggested.

the cause and effect series should have an end. If the observation of the end is not directly within our reach, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We and our capability to physically observe, are limited. Its illogical to assume that our own limits are necessarily equal to the limits of the absolute existence.

When we observe the Universe, and develop better technologies to answer more and more complex questions, we begin to move the point of beginning further and further back. This observational approach to existence is what moved us from thinking that we were the center of the Universe to understanding, as you're arguing here, that we are simply an effect caused by seemingly infinite previous causes

I am not arguing infinite previous causes. I am arguing finite causes that end at a First cause.

When the point of understanding of the First Cause is moved, do you have to adjust your logical argument for the existence of God? If it does, what does that say about your logical argument? What does it say about your God? And logically, how do you not consider that "moving the goal posts

You are making a hypothesis that looks appealing to you, and ignore the reality of the issue. You are pointing to a future event that may never happen. This is a meaningless argument. I can equally point to a future confirmation of my argument or any argument. It doesn't really mean any thing.

If I want to argue for the existence of anything, I can certainly use logical arguments. But would you be OK with me ONLY using logical arguments?

I would accept mere logic for an argument but Who said its only logic? Every thing in existence points to an origin/cause. If you consider the example of gravity, it exerts an influence that is so obvious, yet it was not so easy to see. I claim that God's influence is way more obvious but for many, it's not that easy to see.

 

[gnostic]

The intention is the "absolute first". nothing precedes the "absolute first". to be clear, I am arguing that God is the absolute first cause (which is not an effect) and that God caused the first (physical) effect which is both an effect and a cause for subsequent effects. Only effects require causation but the end of the chain is a cause (first cause) which is not subject to causation.

That's all based on personal opinion, belief, faith or whatever you want this illogical superstition you have.

There are no evidence to support the existence of a god, let alone an Abrahamic deity. The Abrahamic deity didn't exist before the Iron Age (about 1000 BCE).

True monotheism or monotheistic religion didn't begin to exist until the 2nd half of 7th century BCE, at the time of King Josiah.

In Egypt, they say the 1st monotheist was Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), reign 1353 - 1336. His new religion was short-lived, and wasn't all that popular or widespread. Most of the population continued to many different deities, that being the case, Egypt didn't really have "monotheism".

So belief in monotheism was all that popular. Most Hebrew people from the two Israelite kingdoms fall under one of three groups:

1. Monotheists.
2. Polytheists.
3. Or Henotheists.

Meaning, the very idea that God was the first cause, when he didn't exist before Israelites, is absurd, and worse than absurd, in the Qur'an.

My point is that monotheism haven't been around that long, historically. About 2600 or 2700 years...3300 years if you include Akhenaten's Atenism, the religion of the sun disk.

 

[viole]

The intention is the "absolute first". nothing precedes the "absolute first". to be clear, I am arguing that God is the absolute first cause (which is not an effect) and that God caused the first (physical) effect which is both an effect and a cause for subsequent effects. Only effects require causation but the end of the chain is a cause (first cause) which is not subject to causation.



-God is the origin/cause for every thing in existence. Nothing precedes God.
God is not subject to causation, yet causes every effect.

-The first cause is the origin/cause for every thing in existence. Nothing precedes The first cause. The first cause is not subject to causation, yet causes every effect.

- first cause=God.



If space, time and everything physical, originated at the moment of creation, then the cause for the moment of creation is necessarily non-physical. The cause and the process through which the physical world originated is something totally different than any thing that we can experience in the physical world. In other words, the moment of creation is an effect, the cause for that effect is non-physical and not subject to the limits of space, time or any of the physical limits that were originated at the creation point. Being not subject to the limit of time, then the cause doesn't have a beginning, not changeable, being with no beginning, necessarily means Not subject to causation. Being not subject to causation, necessarily means "first cause".



The character traits are logical necessities, first, no beginning, no causation, unchangeable, capable of exerting an influence/causing effects. Unique, Limitless, non-physical.

I knew you wouldn't like "him"but I don't like "it".



See above. It's all logical necessities. If you don't agree with any of it, please explain why



Chance necessarily requires set of pre-existing conditions or "prerequisites". Without the conditions that create/cause the element of chance, there is no chance. It wouldn't have any meaning. Nothing precedes the first cause. The element of chance doesn't exist.

I used the following example before:
If you throw the dice, we have an example of chance. This chance requires, dice, someone to throw it, surface to throw it on and a gravitational field so the dice would balance against the surface. If you have all the "prerequisites", then you have a verified chance of "1/6". If you don't have dice, some one to throw it, surface or gravitational field, then what chances would be possible? In absence of the defining elements of chance, any assumed or imagined chance would be meaningless.



If space, time and every thing physical, originated at the creation point. Then the cosmic elephant or any thing involving space, time or physical elements, is not possible beyond the creation point.



No one said any thing about a man or magic, we are talking about a unique non-physical entity beyond our limits that can be recognized through logic.



This is an irrelevant statement. Do you imply that theism is limited to the Middle East?



the cause and effect series should have an end. If the observation of the end is not directly within our reach, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We and our capability to physically observe, are limited. Its illogical to assume that our own limits are necessarily equal to the limits of the absolute existence.



I am not arguing infinite previous causes. I am arguing finite causes that end at a First cause.



You are making a hypothesis that looks appealing to you, and ignore the reality of the issue. You are pointing to a future event that may never happen. This is a meaningless argument. I can equally point to a future confirmation of my argument or any argument. It doesn't really mean any thing.



I would accept mere logic for an argument but Who said its only logic? Every thing in existence points to an origin/cause. If you consider the example of gravity, it exerts an influence that is so obvious, yet it was not so easy to see. I claim that God's influence is way more obvious but for many, it's not that easy to see.

Does your free will also have a cause? What caused, for instance, your will to write this post?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

That's all based on personal opinion, belief, faith or whatever you want this illogical superstition you have

Your statement is a personal opinion unless you demonstrate it. Can you specifically identify which point/points of what I said that you consider to be an illogical superstition and why?

My point is that monotheism haven't been around that long, historically. About 2600 or 2700 years...3300 years if you include Akhenaten's Atenism, the religion of the sun disk.

This is an irrelevant illogical point. A fact is a fact regardless of our fluctuating knowledge of it or how old is that knowledge.

The Knowledge of God fluctuated throughout history. Some of the monotheistic theism history was recorded and some was not. even eras with major distortions and fading knowledge of God, maintained connection traces to a deity. regardless, people's understanding of theism or how old is it that understanding is irrelevant to this discussion.

When did humans became knowledgable about gravity? (Not very long) Does this mean gravity never existed before that point when we acquired that knowledge? If we some how lose this knowledge or the knowledge became distorted, would gravity be lost as well. It's an irrelevant point.

 

[viole]

The intention is the "absolute first". nothing precedes the "absolute first". to be clear, I am arguing that God is the absolute first cause (which is not an effect) and that God caused the first (physical) effect which is both an effect and a cause for subsequent effects. Only effects require causation but the end of the chain is a cause (first cause) which is not subject to causation.



-God is the origin/cause for every thing in existence. Nothing precedes God.
God is not subject to causation, yet causes every effect.

-The first cause is the origin/cause for every thing in existence. Nothing precedes The first cause. The first cause is not subject to causation, yet causes every effect.

- first cause=God.



If space, time and everything physical, originated at the moment of creation, then the cause for the moment of creation is necessarily non-physical. The cause and the process through which the physical world originated is something totally different than any thing that we can experience in the physical world. In other words, the moment of creation is an effect, the cause for that effect is non-physical and not subject to the limits of space, time or any of the physical limits that were originated at the creation point. Being not subject to the limit of time, then the cause doesn't have a beginning, not changeable, being with no beginning, necessarily means Not subject to causation. Being not subject to causation, necessarily means "first cause".



The character traits are logical necessities, first, no beginning, no causation, unchangeable, capable of exerting an influence/causing effects. Unique, Limitless, non-physical.

I knew you wouldn't like "him"but I don't like "it".



See above. It's all logical necessities. If you don't agree with any of it, please explain why



Chance necessarily requires set of pre-existing conditions or "prerequisites". Without the conditions that create/cause the element of chance, there is no chance. It wouldn't have any meaning. Nothing precedes the first cause. The element of chance doesn't exist.

I used the following example before:
If you throw the dice, we have an example of chance. This chance requires, dice, someone to throw it, surface to throw it on and a gravitational field so the dice would balance against the surface. If you have all the "prerequisites", then you have a verified chance of "1/6". If you don't have dice, some one to throw it, surface or gravitational field, then what chances would be possible? In absence of the defining elements of chance, any assumed or imagined chance would be meaningless.



If space, time and every thing physical, originated at the creation point. Then the cosmic elephant or any thing involving space, time or physical elements, is not possible beyond the creation point.



No one said any thing about a man or magic, we are talking about a unique non-physical entity beyond our limits that can be recognized through logic.



This is an irrelevant statement. Do you imply that theism is limited to the Middle East?



the cause and effect series should have an end. If the observation of the end is not directly within our reach, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We and our capability to physically observe, are limited. Its illogical to assume that our own limits are necessarily equal to the limits of the absolute existence.



I am not arguing infinite previous causes. I am arguing finite causes that end at a First cause.



You are making a hypothesis that looks appealing to you, and ignore the reality of the issue. You are pointing to a future event that may never happen. This is a meaningless argument. I can equally point to a future confirmation of my argument or any argument. It doesn't really mean any thing.



I would accept mere logic for an argument but Who said its only logic? Every thing in existence points to an origin/cause. If you consider the example of gravity, it exerts an influence that is so obvious, yet it was not so easy to see. I claim that God's influence is way more obvious but for many, it's not that easy to see.

Can time be caused?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Your statement is a personal opinion unless you demonstrate it. Can you specifically identify which point/points of what I said that you consider to be an illogical superstition and why?



This is an irrelevant illogical point. A fact is a fact regardless of our fluctuating knowledge of it or how old is that knowledge.

The Knowledge of God fluctuated throughout history. Some of the monotheistic theism history was recorded and some was not. even eras with major distortions and fading knowledge of God, maintained connection traces to a deity. regardless, people's understanding of theism or how old is it that understanding is irrelevant to this discussion.

When did humans became knowledgable about gravity? (Not very long) Does this mean gravity never existed before that point when we acquired that knowledge? If we some how lose this knowledge or the knowledge became distorted, would gravity be lost as well. It's an irrelevant point.

Can time be caused?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

how is that undermining my argument? neither causation nor time is relevant to the first cause.
Causation requires time (in a physical realm). As I said, The first cause is not subject to any causation, influence or limits.


God is timeless because God is not an effect and not subject to causation. Space and time where forced to existence at the very beginning of the physical world at the big bang (creation point). The limits of spacetime apply only within this physical realm. Every thing in the physical realm is a limited cause/effect. These limits don't apply on the first cause.

Causation applies to every thing with the exception of the first cause (the unique beginning of the chain). Otherwise you continue in an infinite regression.


Exactly, without time there is no causation. God is not subject to causation.

God's influence to exert an effect is not the same as a limited effect functioning as a cause for subsequent effect. First cause is free of any (none existent) limits including time. Beyond the first cause all effects have a beginning and subject to causation and the limit of time.


We exist in a realm of effects. We don't understand what is beyond this realm. Maybe we can't imagine it but we can understand that there was a point when neither time nor space existed. Nonetheless, the universe appeared at the big bang in absence of time. After this point, every thing followed the physical limits. Limited effects became causes for other effects and all function (within spacetime) in a strict adherence to the physical limits.


You say "Proof by logic does not make anything exist" and I say "logic is the only reference that can point to a fact". Observation and data would be totally meaningless without the logical assessment that makes it considered as evidence.

People have seen apples falling off trees for so long. Its an observation that didn't mean much to them. Newton applied logic to proof the gravitational force to exist through logical assessment of the data.

Logic is the only common ground (reference) that allows us to communicate. Without logic, any communication would be either impossible or meaningless.



We can proof through logic the truth of what is beyond our realm of understanding/imagination. Can you imagine infinity? It's something without limits of any kind. It's unimaginable. We always look for boundaries to contain every thing. Boundaries of time and space. But do you believe that infinity exist? God is the absolute infinity. God is the eternal beyond any limits of time/space.

Can time be caused?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

Can time be caused?

Ciao

- viole

I know You believe that time can't be caused. Why?

Time is not absolute.motion and gravitation cause time dilation. Time is subject to change. change is an effect (a response to a cause). Whatever changes is subject to causation. Time is (an effect) subject to causation.

The view that time didn't exist within the initial singularity and that time (spacetime) originated at the big bang. Means that time had a beginning. Whatever had a beginning, had to be caused. (I know you don't like that view). If time was not caused, then it didn't have a beginning. If time didn't have a beginning, then it's not subject to causation or change. any point in time should be exactly equal to any other point which may imply unrealistic static model.

What's your view?

 

[viole]

I know You believe that time can't be caused. Why?

Time is not absolute.motion and gravitation cause time dilation. Time is subject to change. change is an effect (a response to a cause). Whatever changes is subject to causation. Time is (an effect) subject to causation.

The view that time didn't exist within the initial singularity and that time (spacetime) originated at the big bang. Means that time had a beginning. Whatever had a beginning, had to be caused. (I know you don't like that view). If time was not caused, then it didn't have a beginning. If time didn't have a beginning, then it's not subject to causation or change. any point in time should be exactly equal to any other point which may imply unrealistic static model.

What's your view?

It is not my view. It is yours My views of time are completely different from yours. But I am digressing...

You said in a previous post, if i am not mistaken, that causality requires a time context in order to be defined. So, how is it possible for time itself to be caused?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

It is not my view. It is yours My views of time are completely different from yours. But I am digressing...

You said in a previous post, if i am not mistaken, that causality requires a time context in order to be defined. So, how is it possible for time itself to be caused?

Ciao

- viole

If we agree to reject infinite regress, then we can see that a cause-effect chain would have 3 different categories.

"A"- first cause. the absolute beginning is a pure first cause. By definition "first" means nothing precedes (remember, we rejected infinite regression). At the beginning, no effect of any kind exists.

"B"- first effect an effect caused directly by the first cause. At this point, no other effect exists. "B" is unique in the sense that it was directly caused by the first cause in absence of any other effects.

"C"- effect/cause: typical item along the chain. Every effect is also a cause for other subsequent effects. "C" is typical in the sense that it was caused by a preceding effect like all other items along the chain. "C" exists/appears in a realm of effects.

Causality requires a time context only in "C" realm. Time didn't influence "B" and has absolutely no relevance to "A".

At the initial singularity, there was no time context, yet the universe appeared in no time context (category B). After this point, every thing is necessarily in category "C" in a strict adherence to a controlling environment of effects "physical laws"

 

[Shad]

I did nothing of the sort. You have abysmal reading comprehension skills.

I guess you never heard of the First Cause Argument or the Argument from Contingency. You have used both.

You can define a cat as uncaused, but this can be experimentally falsified. Can you experimentally falsify the claim that God is uncaused?

Do you see the problem? You have nothing to check nor falsify when you define God is uncaused, you merely define it as such. It is an empty statement anyone can dismiss if they choose to do so.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Simply put, you stop at the conclusion you want.

It's not claimed to be a tautology. These are the rules of logic. Do you reject logic?

Proof by logic does not make anything true. I take issue with what is nothing but a definition game. Whether X exists or does not exist do not bypass a definition game.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You might as well claim that defining insects as six-legged invertebrate arthropods is a "definition game" that "does not make it so" and run around covering your eyes and stopping your ears so you see and hear no evil.

God definitions are a definition game. All attributes are not based on anything but negation. You seem to think because people have definition for God that I should accept this definition because......

Even if true, this claim would in no way invalidate my point.

It does undermine arguments for God. It also points out you arrive at the conclusion you want rather than other possible causes that are not God.

Do you think that if you rant something multiple times that people will be more convinced?

Pointing out you are using classical arguments for God is not a rant. It is educating you that your arguments have been made for centuries and rejected for a number of reasons.

This statement in no way refutes what I said. I said:

EITHER there is at least one uncaused cause
OR there are no uncaused causes.

It wasn't an attempt at refuting the point. It was to show that you stop at the conclusion you favour. You never extend your argument to anything but God.

So no matter how much you scream "There you could be multiple uncaused causes" you have not even begun to refute my point. If anything, you are confirming my opinion of your abysmal reading comprehension skills.

You are jumping to a conclusion. You only argue for a single cause, call this cause God then stop.

You reject logic, but use logic to argue against logic. I get it.

I never rejected logic.

Since I have not argued for or against God, I don't see what your point is. I have never met such a knee-jerk atheist as you. It's amazing.

You have posted a number of classical arguments for God. Not my problem you are obvious to this.

By labeling something an effect, you are claiming that it has a cause. That's the definition of cause and effect. We've been over this.

I am pointing out the basis previous arguments, radical skepticism, are abandoned when you argue for position rather than against it. There is also a question if what are labelled as effects are labelled properly.

 

[Shad]

how is that undermining my argument? neither causation nor time is relevant to the first cause.

Causation requires time. Since God's creation is considered an act this involves time.

Causation requires time (in a physical realm). As I said, The first cause is not subject to any causation, influence or limits.

Thus causation can not be applied to a realm of without time.

God is timeless because God is not an effect and not subject to causation. Space and time where forced to existence at the very beginning of the physical world at the big bang (creation point). The limits of spacetime apply only within this physical realm. Every thing in the physical realm is a limited cause/effect. These limits don't apply on the first cause.

All of this comment requires times as causation is within space-time. Nothing more than special pleading.

Causation applies to every thing with the exception of the first cause (the unique beginning of the chain). Otherwise you continue in an infinite regression.

Causation applies to the first cause otherwise you can never claim there is a first cause.

Exactly, without time there is no causation. God is not subject to causation.

Your argument is dead since you can not create a chain of causes leading to God. Special pleading. You are confusing contingency with causation.

God's influence to exert an effect is not the same as a limited effect functioning as a cause for subsequent effect. First cause is free of any (none existent) limits including time. Beyond the first cause all effects have a beginning and subject to causation and the limit of time.

Without time there is no causation nor chain of causes to use for your God argument.

We exist in a realm of effects. We don't understand what is beyond this realm. Maybe we can't imagine it but we can understand that there was a point when neither time nor space existed. Nonetheless, the universe appeared at the big bang in absence of time. After this point, every thing followed the physical limits. Limited effects became causes for other effects and all function (within spacetime) in a strict adherence to the physical limits.

If as you claim do not understand what is beyond this realm then you have admitted every argument for God is speculation nor can you even link a chain of causes to God. You can only link this chain to the universe.

You say "Proof by logic does not make anything exist" and I say "logic is the only reference that can point to a fact". Observation and data would be totally meaningless without the logical assessment that makes it considered as evidence.

Proof by logic does not make something external to the argument exist within the world.

Causality is based on observation.

People have seen apples falling off trees for so long. Its an observation that didn't mean much to them. Newton applied logic to proof the gravitational force to exist through logical assessment of the data.

People within a city cared about rocks launched from catapults falling on them, gravity. People that works near the top of cathedrals cared about falling to their deaths, gravity. You have equated caring about an apple falling with people not caring about the effects of gravity as a whole. You also have confused a model for gravity from Newton with people caring about it's effects or having an inferior model.

Logic is the only common ground (reference) that allows us to communicate. Without logic, any communication would be either impossible or meaningless.

We had language well before we developed systems of logic.

We can proof through logic the truth of what is beyond our realm of understanding/imagination.

So speculation with wishful thinking.

Can you imagine infinity?

Why does this matter? A limit in our imagination does not making something true or false. Also using the imagination is abstract thinking. I can image myself flying like Superman. This does not mean I can

It's something without limits of any kind. It's unimaginable.

So there is nothing to talk about since we have no ability to even create a basis concept. Yet here you are talking about something you can not imagine.

We always look for boundaries to contain every thing. Boundaries of time and space. But do you believe that infinity exist? God is the absolute infinity. God is the eternal beyond any limits of time/space.

Special pleading and definition games. You also used a double-standard. If infinities can exist then your point about infinite regression is moot. Be careful with your definition games. You may define yourself into a box.

 

[NoorNoor]

Causation requires time. Since God's creation is considered an act this involves time.

"Causation requires time" only applies after the big bang. You cant apply same rules beyond the big bang. At the initial singularity, no time, no space, no matter and no physical laws existed. Yet the universe (an effect) was caused in "no time context". In other words, the cause for the big bang didn't involve time. See #875.

Thus causation can not be applied to a realm of without time

The universe did appear/caused at the big bang without time. Beyond this point (creation point), there is no physical realm or time.

All of this comment requires times as causation is within space-time. Nothing more than special pleading

Unjustified repetitive denial. Space-time is meaningless at the initial singularity. As an effect, the big bang did not require time.

Causation applies to the first cause otherwise you can never claim there is a first cause

Do you know what "first" means? We either accept infinite regression or accept an absolute beginning that we call "a first cause". Nothing precedes the "first". The first is different than every thing else in the sence that it neither has a beginning nor dependent on prior cause. Time neither exists nor applies.

Your argument is dead since you can not create a chain of causes leading to God. Special pleading. You are confusing contingency with causation

"a chain of causes for the first cause"??
You know. It's not that you can't understand. You don't want to.
You insist on either circular logic or infinite regression at the same time we are excluding both.

contingent being (every thing in our realm) is something that exists but that might, under other circumstances, not exist. it does not account for its own existence ((an effect)). All contingent beings need a cause. All contingent beings are possible not to be before it was caused. at one point all contingency beings didn't exist. nothing can't produce something. Even so all contingent being didn't exist but a non-contingent entity must have existed/caused all contingent beings. The nature of the necessary non-contingent being can't be matter (physical) since all matter has contingencies and dependent on prior cause. The non-physical, non-contingent first cause must exist.

If as you claim do not understand what is beyond this realm then you have admitted every argument for God is speculation nor can you even link a chain of causes to God. You can only link this chain to the universe.

We can prove or understand the existence (not the nature) of what we can't imagine. Can you imagine space-time geometry (with curved relative time lines defining a gravity free inertial frame) or the relativity of time?
We only understand the effects that we can observe but we can never understand the true nature of things. Like the example of the physical forces, we can only understand how it works in terms of observed influence but can never understand its true nature. Nonetheless, We can definitely prove and understand the existence of what we can neither imagine nor understand its true nature.

Causality is based on observation.

Causality as a principal, can be proven based on observation and logic but the end of the chain can't be observed.

People within a city cared about rocks launched from catapults falling on them, gravity. People that works near the top of cathedrals cared about falling to their deaths, gravity. You have equated caring about an apple falling with people not caring about the effects of gravity as a whole. You also have confused a model for gravity from Newton with people caring about it's effects or having an inferior model.

No, caring about the effects have nothing to do with the understanding of the existence of the cause. For so long, caring or observing the effects of gravity, didn't trigger an understanding of the cause, because of the absence of applying logic to explain the phenomenon, till Newton did.

We had language well before we developed systems of logic.

Its not about a language, it's about a common ground or reference against which an argument can be established. This common ground is logic. With no logic, no argument is meaningful.

Why does this matter? A limit in our imagination does not making something true or false. Also using the imagination is abstract thinking. I can image myself flying like Superman. This does not mean I can

The intent is that, what can't be imagined or clearly understood is not necessarily equal to non-existent. We can understand the existence (not the nature) of what is beyond our understand.

Special pleading and definition games.

meaningless denial. What of what I said that you consider to be special pleading or definition game and why?

You also used a double-standard. If infinities can exist then your point about infinite regression is moot. Be careful with your definition games. You may define yourself into a box.

In other words, you claim "infinity" is equal to "infinite regression". This is fundamentally false. It's actually the opposite.

Infinite regress: a repetitive process. every item is effect/cause that requires another preceding item of the same type (effect/cause). Every answer generates same exact question. The process repeat itself to infinity. All the items have beginnings. None of the items is infinite. Its an infinite repetitive process that does not encompass any infinity, only finite items. infinite regress, doesn't provide an answer, only a question that keeps shifting backwards infinitely.

First cause: the process itself is finite, it ends at an entity of different type. An entity that is not an effect an doesn't need a cause. An entity with no beginning. Not subject to causation or limits. The finite chain of finite items ends at an infinite entity.

This is a logic that is also supported by the scientific view that no time, space or physical matter existed at the initial singularity, that necessarily means the cause was not subject to the limits of time, space or any physical limits. No time means, no beginning, no preceding cause. No limits means an infinity.

space and time are limits. Infinity doesn't mean a very large space or a very long time that continues forever. Infinity means total absence of any limits. Limits neither exist nor apply.

 

[Shad]

"Causation requires time" only applies after the big bang.

No it applies to the very idea otherwise there is no cause nor effect.

You cant apply same rules beyond the big bang. At the initial singularity, no time, no space, no matter and no physical laws existed.

Special pleading, nothing more.

Yet the universe (an effect) was caused in "no time context". In other words, the cause for the big bang didn't involve time. See #875.

No one knows this, mere opinion nothing more.

The universe did appear/caused at the big bang without time. Beyond this point (creation point), there is no physical realm or time.

Speculation and opinion.

Unjustified repetitive denial. Space-time is meaningless at the initial singularity. As an effect, the big bang did not require time.

Speculation and opinion.

Do you know what "first" means? We either accept infinite regression or accept an absolute beginning that we call "a first cause". Nothing precedes the "first". The first is different than every thing else in the sence that it neither has a beginning nor dependent on prior cause. Time neither exists nor applies.

Irrelevant to my points about time. First is a word that is connected with time and order.

More speculation and opinion.

"a chain of causes for the first cause"??

A chain of causes is reversed to a first cause as per Aristotle. By saying causation does not apply to the first cause, hence the chain, it is nothing but special pleading.

You know. It's not that you can't understand. You don't want to.

I understand it. Hence why I am pointing out your special pleading

You insist on either circular logic or infinite regression at the same time we are excluding both.

No. I never said what is the cause of the first cause nor put forward an infinity. You put forward an infinity. I am pointing out that time is a basis of causality.

contingent being (every thing in our realm) is something that exists but that might, under other circumstances, not exist. it does not account for its own existence ((an effect)). All contingent beings need a cause. All contingent beings are possible not to be before it was caused. at one point all contingency beings didn't exist. nothing can't produce something. Even so all contingent being didn't exist but a non-contingent entity must have existed/caused all contingent beings. The nature of the necessary non-contingent being can't be matter (physical) since all matter has contingencies and dependent on prior cause. The non-physical, non-contingent first cause must exist.



We can prove or understand the existence (not the nature) of what we can't imagine.

Yet here you are talking about it

Can you imagine space-time geometry (with curved relative time lines defining a gravity free inertial frame) or the relativity of time?

Irrelevant. Imagination does not making something true nor false.

We only understand the effects that we can observe but we can never understand the true nature of things.

Which is done within time.
Again here you are talking about the true nature of the first cause. You also make a mistake as you admit causation relies on induction thus the argument is not deductive.

Like the example of the physical forces, we can only understand how it works in terms of observed influence but can never understand its true nature. Nonetheless, We can definitely prove and understand the existence of what we can neither imagine nor understand its true nature.

If we can not understand the true nature of something we can not prove anything about it. You contradict yourself

Causality as a principal, can be proven based on observation and logic but the end of the chain can't be observed.

We have no observations of the first cause. We infer a first cause based on induction. Induction can not be proven.

No, caring about the effects have nothing to do with the understanding of the existence of the cause.

Wrong as people understood even the basic idea that rocks from catapult come down. They just didn't make a mathematical model. Instead they had a basic model such as rocks launched from a catapult fall down

For so long, caring or observing the effects of gravity, didn't trigger an understanding of the cause, because of the absence of applying logic to explain the phenomenon, till Newton did.

Newton made a mathematical model which improved upon the basis understanding of gravity. Aristotle wrote about gravity. He thought objects moved towards their natural place, the place being the Earth. Which is correct as the Earth creates a pull via it's mass.

Its not about a language, it's about a common ground or reference against which an argument can be established. This common ground is logic. With no logic, no argument is meaningful.

Logic was not established for millennia after language was common. Also people are limited thus the arguments developed are also limited. Hence why Newton had access to sources such as Galileo but Aristotle. Newton already accepted objects fall to the Earth. He, unlike Aristotle, extend this line of thought to planets.

The intent is that, what can't be imagined or clearly understood is not necessarily equal to non-existent. We can understand the existence (not the nature) of what is beyond our understand.

This is pure sophistry. Imagination does not make anything true or false. If we can understand the existence of something then it is not beyond our understanding.

meaningless denial. What of what I said that you consider to be special pleading or definition game and why?

Special pleading since your chain of causes involve time until you get to the point you want, God, which has a definition as timeless. So rather than accept the argument is flawed you invoke special pleading in which your first cause is immune to all factors of your chain of causes.

In other words, you claim "infinity" is equal to "infinite regression". This is fundamentally false. It's actually the opposite.

Read your own comment below. You answered your own question then contradict yourself "The process repeat itself to infinity." So I wasn't wrong, you just have no idea what you are talking about.

Infinite regress: a repetitive process. every item is effect/cause that requires another preceding item of the same type (effect/cause). Every answer generates same exact question. The process repeat itself to infinity.

All the items have beginnings. None of the items is infinite. Its an infinite repetitive process that does not encompass any infinity, only finite items. infinite regress, doesn't provide an answer, only a question that keeps shifting backwards infinitely.

It is still an infinite chain of causes. Yes it has major issues.

Yet as per your comment leads to an infinity thus becomes infinite chain of causes which is an infinity

Which as per your own explanation is correct. "The process repeat itself to infinity." Hence an infinite chain of causes rather than a finite chain of causes.

First cause: the process itself is finite, it ends at an entity of different type. An entity that is not an effect an doesn't need a cause. An entity with no beginning. Not subject to causation or limits. The finite chain of finite items ends at an infinite entity.

Definition games. We have no information about the first cause. You treat religious rhetoric and speculation as if a solid definition. The only limit broken is that it needs a cause itself. It says nothing about time, bounds, etc, beyond this point.

This is a logic that is also supported by the scientific view that no time, space or physical matter existed at the initial singularity, that necessarily means the cause was not subject to the limits of time, space or any physical limits. No time means, no beginning, no preceding cause. No limits means an infinity.

The scientific view puts forward that since time and space are part of the universe to talk about what come before, or caused it, is nonsense as there is no time. No physics, no time, no space means no causes. Unless you inject magic, which you have done.

space and time are limits.

Which causality follows thus to talk about causality without either is nonsense.

Infinity doesn't mean a very large space or a very long time that continues forever. Infinity means total absence of any limits. Limits neither exist nor apply.

Never said it did. I am just pointing out that you use infinity when it helps your then reject it if it can be applied to ideas you do not accept.

 

[Zosimus]

I guess you never heard of the First Cause Argument or the Argument from Contingency. You have used both.

Of course I have heard of these arguments, but I have used neither of them.

Do you see the problem? You have nothing to check nor falsify when you define God is uncaused, you merely define it as such. It is an empty statement anyone can dismiss if they choose to do so.

I have not defined God as uncaused.

Simply put, you stop at the conclusion you want.

I have not drawn a conclusion. I am agnostic.

Proof by logic does not make anything true. I take issue with what is nothing but a definition game. Whether X exists or does not exist do not bypass a definition game.

Definitions are not a game. If one defines insects in a way that excludes spiders, this does not entitle the person who disagrees with the definition to attack bystanders who point out that others have made that definition.

God definitions are a definition game. All attributes are not based on anything but negation. You seem to think because people have definition for God that I should accept this definition because......

If someone says, "I believe in God" and that person's definition of God is "an uncaused cause" then one should argue about whether there is an uncaused cause rather than whether God is anthropomorphic.

It does undermine arguments for God. It also points out you arrive at the conclusion you want rather than other possible causes that are not God.

I have not drawn any conclusions. I am agnostic.

Pointing out you are using classical arguments for God is not a rant. It is educating you that your arguments have been made for centuries and rejected for a number of reasons.

I have not made any arguments. I have simply noted that the law of the excluded middle says that EITHER there is a God OR there is NOT a God. That's a simple statement of logic. I don't see why this calls for a massive knee-jerk diatribe.

It wasn't an attempt at refuting the point. It was to show that you stop at the conclusion you favour. You never extend your argument to anything but God.

I do not favor a conclusion. I am agnostic.

You are jumping to a conclusion. You only argue for a single cause, call this cause God then stop.

I am not making a conclusion (much less jumping to one). I am agnostic.

I never rejected logic.

You do reject logic. The statement "Either God exists or it's not the case that God exists" is a simple statement of fundamental logic and one that you reject.

You have posted a number of classical arguments for God. Not my problem you are obvious to this.

I have posted no argument for God. I am agnostic.

I am pointing out the basis previous arguments, radical skepticism, are abandoned when you argue for position rather than against it. There is also a question if what are labelled as effects are labelled properly.

My skepticism is not radical. I am agnostic. I certainly agree that people may label things effects that are not, in fact, effects. However, when I note that others have labeled things thus, it is not a call for a rant in which you claim that I hold opinions that I do not hold.