the universe most likely didn't cause itself

So to be clear, an uncaused cause would not be a product of time then?

[YOU]: The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work;

[ME]: I will take this as an admission that your understanding of how things work is in error because it doesn't match reality.

I don’t want to go back and “talk about something else”, I simply want you to not ignore an entire post someone makes; I made a whole number of key points, and argument restatements that are critical - because I’m going to now have to restate them for maybe the 6th time as you keep ignoring them  ..

My main point is absolutely not about causality and time: it’s about what conclusions we can draw from our intuitions. And you not understanding what my argument is, is exactly why I object to you systematically ignoring it.

Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.

It only matters if it impacts the conclusion. If whatever definition you want to supply still works - then arguing about the definition is a red herring.

As I pointed out: the definition you’ve used throughout doesn’t impact anything. It still doesn’t really

You have made no attempt to show how the argument is impacted - you’re just saying it is - just objecting to something because you can object...

How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.

I was pretty clear what I meant by causality from the start; cause and effect coupled in time. Arguing that time is not part of causality is brand new: and something you should have said at the start, no? Rather than simply springing it after a half dozen posts and pretending that this is what you meant the whole time.

Your characterization here is comprehensively false.

Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.

I’ve been fairly clear throughout: you completely ignored it: Your definition doesn’t match what we observe, or how we understand causality.

What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it. Time travel does not lead to a causality that makes sense - including things like paradoxes; and still involve linear causality (effects always occurs in a causes local future - but not necessarily a global future).

But your overt fixation with definitions is missing the point - as should have been clear in the post you ignored.

The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work; so we cannot deduce a solution using our current understanding.

If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.

This whole weird definition side track demonstrates my point.

In order to conclude the universe was created; you have to define causality as non temporal. If you do that; all other options are now just as reasonable.

You would be aware of this had you read my argument or had you actually tried to show how changes in definitions impacted my argument - it would also have shown that applying it to your own argument undermines your conclusion.

This is why I’m calling you out for constantly ignoring me. My argument doesn’t functionally rely on causality actually being one way or another; something you have yet to wrap your head round; only that it must not follow the rules as we observe or perceive them - and if doesn’t: we have no basis upon which to speculate: in both cases the original conclusion you made - is false.

It’s that link back to my argument - and your argument you keep ignoring. It’s not clear how any of your objections link to what we said; thus it appears you’re just trying to find an objection - any objection : Picking peanuts out of poop.

If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.

So to be clear, an uncaused cause would not be a product of time then?

Yes, it would be.

I don’t want to go back and “talk about something else”, I simply want you to not ignore an entire post someone makes; I made a whole number of key points, and argument restatements that are critical - because I’m going to now have to restate them for maybe the 6th time as you keep ignoring them  ..

My main point is absolutely not about causality and time: it’s about what conclusions we can draw from our intuitions. And you not understanding what my argument is, is exactly why I object to you systematically ignoring it.

Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.

It only matters if it impacts the conclusion. If whatever definition you want to supply still works - then arguing about the definition is a red herring.

As I pointed out: the definition you’ve used throughout doesn’t impact anything. It still doesn’t really

You have made no attempt to show how the argument is impacted - you’re just saying it is - just objecting to something because you can object...

How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.

I was pretty clear what I meant by causality from the start; cause and effect coupled in time. Arguing that time is not part of causality is brand new: and something you should have said at the start, no? Rather than simply springing it after a half dozen posts and pretending that this is what you meant the whole time.

Your characterization here is comprehensively false.

Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.

I’ve been fairly clear throughout: you completely ignored it: Your definition doesn’t match what we observe, or how we understand causality.

What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it. Time travel does not lead to a causality that makes sense - including things like paradoxes; and still involve linear causality (effects always occurs in a causes local future - but not necessarily a global future).

But your overt fixation with definitions is missing the point - as should have been clear in the post you ignored.

The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work; so we cannot deduce a solution using our current understanding.

If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.

This whole weird definition side track demonstrates my point.

In order to conclude the universe was created; you have to define causality as non temporal. If you do that; all other options are now just as reasonable.

You would be aware of this had you read my argument or had you actually tried to show how changes in definitions impacted my argument - it would also have shown that applying it to your own argument undermines your conclusion.

This is why I’m calling you out for constantly ignoring me. My argument doesn’t functionally rely on causality actually being one way or another; something you have yet to wrap your head round; only that it must not follow the rules as we observe or perceive them - and if doesn’t: we have no basis upon which to speculate: in both cases the original conclusion you made - is false.

It’s that link back to my argument - and your argument you keep ignoring. It’s not clear how any of your objections link to what we said; thus it appears you’re just trying to find an objection - any objection : Picking peanuts out of poop.

How reality works is unable to explain reality

This line is my absolute favorite.

We observe reality, and have understood temporal principles of causality that are temporal, our understanding of reality is predicated upon time.

What we observe and understand of them; are completely unable to explain their own existence. Our reality can’t explain itself.

1. Your understanding of how reality works is at least partially incorrect, and it is possible for reality to exist according to how reality works.
   
2. Your understanding of how reality works is correct, and it is impossible for reality to exist according to how reality works.
   

So just to be clear, your understanding of how reality works can't explain reality. It seems we have two options to consider:

Your understanding of how reality works is at least partially incorrect, and it is possible for reality to exist according to how reality works.

Your understanding of how reality works is correct, and it is impossible for reality to exist according to how reality works.

I pick peanut #1.

*Our understanding of how reality works. 

Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point.

But anything else is complete rank speculation with no basis

I mean come on - I covered this like 8 times in the posts you deliberately ignored because you have no ability to contest my point.

Seriously though: the lengths you are going to in order to avoid an argument is hilarious.

What is there to argue about? I don't have to prove you wrong - you've already admitted you are. And I can't prove you right because you're wrong.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you would describe in very clear terms how you understand reality works regarding causality, just so I'm 100% clear.

• "that our understanding of reality is not correct"

• “that a cause and effect must be temporally related"

• "[that a cause and effect must be temporally related] is not correct."

Your understanding of how reality works:

•  “that a cause and effect must be temporally related"
  

Your premise restated for clarity:

• "[that a cause and effect must be temporally related] is not correct."
  

Your confusing my premise - that our understanding of reality is not correct - with my conclusion -that you’re pulling assumptions out of your arse to make up for it, and implying they are more likely than any other.

• "[that a cause and effect must be temporally related] is not correct."

Your confusing my premise - that our understanding of reality is not correct  - with my conclusion -that you’re pulling assumptions out of your arse to make up for it, and implying they are more likely than any other.

Your confusing my premise - that our understanding of reality is not correct - with my conclusion -that you’re pulling assumptions out of your arse to make up for it, and implying they are more likely than any other.

My premise:

Our understanding of reality is not correct - meaning that how our perceived reality works cannot be coherently applied to explain why our perceived reality exists without adding metaphysical assumptions which cannot themselves be validated or assessed. (IE: it is insufficient, and requires expansion of some in order to apply to the universe)

prod·uct

/ˈprädəkt/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1.an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale. "food products"

2. a thing or person that is the result of an action or process.

• Effect - "something that is produced by an agency or cause;"
  

It would just begin. Causes and effects would take place inside of it, as far as we could possibly deduce.

Ok I'll bite. So now with that added content,

our current and collective understanding of reality that cause and effect must be temporally related is not correct.

And, the only way to coherently explain why our perceived reality exists is to assume there is some metaphysical aspect to it, rather than strictly temporal.

Are logic and reason valid tools for assessing claims - even those regarding metaphysics?

So just to be clear, your understanding of how reality works can't explain reality. It seems we have two options to consider:

Your understanding of how reality works is at least partially incorrect, and it is possible for reality to exist according to how reality works.

Your understanding of how reality works is correct, and it is impossible for reality to exist according to how reality works.

I pick peanut #1.

*Our understanding of how reality works. 

Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point.

Are logic and reason valid tools for assessing claims - even those regarding metaphysics?

I have Absolutely no clue whatsoever.

*Our understanding of how reality works. 

Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point.

This is what you said previously. Your entire point was that our understanding of how reality works - that a cause and effect must be temporally related - can't be correct. So how is it inconsistent to say that "our current and collective understanding of reality that cause and effect must be temporally related is not correct"?

Are logic and reason valid tools for assessing claims - even those regarding metaphysics?

I have Absolutely no clue whatsoever.

If you have no clue, then how can you claim that there are "metaphysical assumptions which cannot themselves be validated or assessed"? If you don't know, then the possibility is open that they can be assessed by logic and reason, and your criticism is invalid.

For example - let’s take that assumption about logic.

Let’s say logic is a valid tool (I will cover the alternative shortly - just to prevent you quote mining again)  - the logic of my argument still necessarily stands; and your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.

Let’s take the alternative - that it’s not a valid tool. In this case, any claims about origins are by default impossible: and thus your original claim that the universe was created is a more likely explanation is still completely unjustified.

So to summarize - I have no idea, and no basis for finding out. But any way you could answer that question invariably leads to your Original conclusion being unjustified - which is my whole point.

In this sense; I mean “not correct” to mean “insufficient to explain”, rather than “inherently invalid”

• Reality exists and your premise is wrong
• Reality doesn't exist and your premise is right

To add to this however: your problem is that you drew a form conclusion. That something was probable.

How do you assess the likelihood that logic does or does not Apply?

How do you assess the likelihood that infinities can exist - that something may not have a cause?

If your premise, brought to its logical conclusion, makes it impossible for reality to exist as you have repeatedly claimed, then you are left with two options:

• Reality exists and your premise is wrong
  
• Reality doesn't exist and your premise is right
  

To add to this however: your problem is that you drew a form conclusion. That something was probable.

Which conclusion are you talking about?

How do you assess the likelihood that logic does or does not Apply?

Where have I talked about the likelihood of logic applying to something?

How do you assess the likelihood that infinities can exist - that something may not have a cause?

Have I claimed the it is likely that infinities can exist? Or that it is likely something may not have a cause?

“Our understanding of how reality (specifically various aspects of causality) works is not sufficient to explain the existence of reality”

Your argument - was that the universe having been caused is a more likely explanation than the others - the universe not having a cause, causing itself, or being eternal.

Can you please cite where I argued that the universe having a cause is a more likely explanation than the others? As opposed to being the only logical conclusion?