the universe most likely didn't cause itself

This would be essentially synonymous with the term "effect," right?

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific then that. Would time begin at the same point as the first cause, or would time have begun before the first cause?

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

If Reality exists  and our understanding is not sufficient to explain it. Then reality exists and my premise is correct. Boom.

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

Yes, it would be.

That’s as specific as I can be, anything further would be pure baseless speculation.

Objecting to object - peanuts out of poop; sifting through a 100 of my posts to find some way of splitting hairs in all the posts you ignored;

“I would say the only reasonable choice is option 3.”

I took that to mean probability. 

I am very happy if you meant “the only logical conclusion” - as that means that you’re argument is Deductive rather than inductive - which means you are assuming as true all the metaphysical assumptions you can’t possibly know, vs assuming them as probable. The issue is exactly the same and would render your conclusion invalid in both cases:

Fruit Inspector self-own (2): Asking a question in which his own conclusion fails for all answers.

• The universe is eternal
  
• The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
  
• Something caused the universe to come into being.
  

Can you give an explanation of the universe that doesn't fall into one of my categories?

• The universe is eternal
  
• The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
  
• Something caused the universe to come into being.
  

Fruit_inspector self own(4): forgets what the argument is - the argument is not that his list is incomplete - but that all elements require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be assessed.

So you do not dispute that all explanations of the origin of the universe can fall under one of those three categories. Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the categories be eliminated without metaphysical assumptions?

Is the law of noncontradiction a metaphysical assumption?

Is the law of noncontradiction a metaphysical assumption?

If you can't answer the question, that's ok. 

If you cannot clarify what is or is not a "metaphysical assumption," then your criticism is worthless. I need to know what you are talking about.

I'm asking you if something is or is not a metaphysical assumption for the purpose of clarifying how your criticism applies to my argument. And you're dodging the question. Whether that is because you can't answer it or because you don't want to is still to be determined.

Fruit_inspector self own(22): continues to refuse to respond to argument:

Did you ever stop to wonder whether asking a question about metaphysical assumptions would be directly related to addressing your argument about metaphysical assumptions?

I am trying to address it, but you keep dodging the question.

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.

It doesn’t matter whether it or isn’t, whether it is true or not - you’re wrong both ways.

Answered in the part of my post that you deliberately cut out:

...

The conclusion of your original argument - that I’ve been desperately trying to draw you back to - assumes logic applies, or likely applies. If it doesn’t apply, then your conclusion doesn’t follow - which is my point. For your conclusion to follow, you must be able to determine whether it’s more likely for logic to be a valid tool. 

Question is irrelevant - if the answer is yes, my argument is valid on the grounds that it’s an assumption that you must make. If no, my argument is valid as it’s logic is sound.

the question is irrelevant - as if it is a metaphysical assumption - you’re wrong. If it is not a metaphysical assumption: then my argument stands and you’re still wrong.

the answer is irrelevant - as if it is a metaphysical assumption - you’re wrong. If it is not a metaphysical assumption: then my argument stands and you’re still wrong. This is the answer to the question I have repeated multiple time’s now over multiple posts.

The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)

the universe caused itself

Fruit_inspector self own(35) - fruit changes the terms of his list. What he originally said was:

The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)

Now he’s changed that to:

the universe caused itself

I'm just going to assume that your answer is no, the law of noncontradiction is not a metaphysical assumption.

Since we can rule out option 2 [the universe is self-created] using the law of noncontradiction - which is not a metaphysical assumption - we have a basis to rule out at least one of our options without adding any metaphysical assumptions.

The option “The universe is finite in time, but uncaused” falls broadly under your second element of the list - and definitely doesn’t violate the law of non contradiction; arguably you could claim it falls under the first bullet; but the wording is so ambiguous (the universe is eternal) it is so ripe for equivocation as to be meaningless.

For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was. It would have to exist before it existed. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

If time is emergent within the universe rather than outside, how does “causation” even work? We have no basis for understanding how causation even works; the words you’re using cease to have rational meaning in that context- so it’s impossible to tell whether there’s any inherent contradiction without assuming our causality in a configuration where we know our causality cannot be applied.

Therefore, option 2 (the universe is self-created) is invalidated as a reasonable option due to the law of noncontradiction.

Any explanation of origins that falls under option 2 can be ruled out based on the law of noncontradiction?

 Any explanation of origins that falls under option 2 can be ruled out based on the law of noncontradiction?

Are the Laws of Thermodynamics a metaphysical assumption?

If you want to take “the universe created itself” off the table; you must INSERT - “the universe came from nothing” And/or “the universe has no cause” into your list.

For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was. It would have to exist before it existed. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Fruit_inspector self own(42): I bolded words that require time. violation of non contradiction requires that the universe exists inside time; or temporal causality still applies without time - this is a metaphysical assumption.

Any explanation of origins that falls under option 2 can be ruled out based on the law of noncontradiction?

No: This is NOT incorrect.

“The universe came from nothing” does not violate non contradiction - it simply requires the metaphysical assumption that something can exist without itself having been caused.

If time is emergent from the universe - that the universe is itself atemporal; the word creation has no meaning - so your applying temporal rules to an atemporal universe. Which refutes the claim.

Fruit_inspector self own(43): Torpedoes his own argument. Even assuming all the refutations above don’t apply; Option three is that something caused the universe. The three options of fruits list also apply to any prospective cause of the universe. 

This would leave either infinite regress; or that something In reality is “eternal”.

Ignoring that this leaves out a whole bunch of options that fruit chopped out for no reason; the idea that the cause of the universe maybe eternal, but that it’s not possible for the universe itself to be eternal in some way is special pleading. Which refutes his original argument.

Whether we are looking at this in time or out of time does not matter. Using those terms is easier to convey the point. But if you prefer, we could use a term like "antecedent," or modify the phrase to say, "Something cannot both exist and not exist." Problem solved.

It also violates the the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit.

If option #2 is invalidated as an illogical choice, your premise already fails. There is at least one option that is unfavorable compared to the others.

If we are then left with options #1 and #3, it is still possible that the universe is eternal - so there is no special pleading here. 

To say the universe is eternal is also to say it is uncaused.

And you are right that option #3 leaves us with infinite regress or something that is eternal (other than the universe). I would say that it is unreasonable to choose infinite regress, which would leave us with something that is eternal. So while options #1 and #3 are different, they both leave us with something that is eternal.

I’ve never seen someone so singularly dedicated to avoiding the other persons point. Right?

Would you also say that an uncaused cause is an effect of time?

That’s as specific as I can be, anything further would be pure baseless speculation.

So, you don't know?

EtrnlVw 82 to Ramshutu :

The universe is like the fabric or backdrop to that which appears within the universe. Perhaps we can say that the universe is like a body of water per say, and then we have all that exists within that body of water. When we refer to creation, we are referring to that which appears within that body of water.

Amoranemix 120 :

So God allegedly created the stuff within spacetime, but not spacetime itself ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

This question is nonsensical. Creation is directly related to time, the very action or process of creation is when time can appear as something that can be observed and measured. I'll let you dwell of the idea of "fixed" for awhile. Spacetime is simply an expansion, that expansion had a beginning. Time and this expansion are not relevant to an eternal structure. They occur within it not with it.

Amoranemix 120 :

[5] That is your belief and hypothesis. However there are many belief on the origin of the universe. The scientific ones referring to God are low on the popularity list in cosmological circles.

[6] What does eternity mean in the absense of time ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

[5] Materialism is idiotic no matter what circles it infiltrates. To accept that inanimate forces and materials can build a working functioning universe is one of the most absurd notions that exists.

[6] As I already said, honestly I'm getting sick of trying to get someone to comprehend such a simple concept. I've thoroughly went over it in this thread. Eternity in the absence of time is a fixed state of existence because again, we need not bump into the infinite regress paradox. There is no paradox because time is only relevant to a starting point and an ending point. Remove those features and we have a stationary fixture. An infinite past is idiotic and makes no sense, it doesn't exist.[7]

Do you think that brain inside your skull can handle the distinction between eternal and temporal and time vs no time?[8] please say yes, because I'm not going over it again.   I mean I get it, everyone here is completely familiar with their life in relation to time....it's all they know, birth and death, beginning and ending, we start here and we go there ect ect but trust me. I've thought about this more than anyone here, once you get it through your head that time is basically an illusion and nothing more than a measurement you'll go "ahhhh well hell, that makes perfect sense". 

Eternity has no relationship with space between two events, it has no association with linear time as we observe it. 

Ramshutu 114 :

You didn’t offer any justification: simply blurting our what you think is true, is not a valid way to have an argument.

EtrnlVw 127 :

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't in an argument. However, none of my opinions are without justification, they are always well thought out whether or not you agree with them.[9] I understand you don't like my opinion but I didn't need to give anything other than what I think is true because I was not arguing or debating it. You on the other hand didn't argue my premise, you just claimed they were assertions and gave your own opinion. Heck, I wasn't even addressing you to begin with.

Ramshutu 114 :

Self replicating RNA in Protocells, to more complex cellular machinery in 500m years is a bit unclear.

EtrnlVw 127 :

Again, perhaps you completely don't understand my premise. Reciting processes is making my point not countering it. I'm not arguing against them, I'm giving you the dynamics of why they occur.

ethang5 4 to n8nrgmi :

Exactly. In fact, the claim that the universe started itself violates some of the laws of science. But atheists are quite willing to contradict science in order to keep God out of the picture.

Amoranemix 120 :

Which laws of science does the claim that the universe started itself violate ?

ethang5 128 :

Causality. Entropy. Life only from life.

ethang5 71 :

The atheists confusion come in when he conflates the creator and his creation, irrationally thinking that both must submit to the same laws.

Amoranemix 120 :

It may be wrong, but that does not make believing otherwise irrational. Almost every creator is subject to some of the laws their creation is subject to, like the laws of mathematics and the laws of physics.

ethang5 128 :

God is a singularity. He precedes, and is the source of, all laws. Every other "creator" is composed of the same material as his creation, and is not the author of the natural laws governing his creation. God is unique that way. Believing God would be subject to laws He pre-existed and created IS irrational.

Double_R 129 :

Third, is that this is a comparative statement. I wasn’t assessing the strength of the conclusion, I was explaining why the universe having no cause is a stronger explanation than God being the uncaused chase.

Fruit_Inspect 130 :

I wasn't arguing that God is the uncaused cause. I was arguing that there is an uncaused cause. Once we establish whether or not there is an uncaused cause, then we can discuss what that cause is.

Ramshutu 132 to Fruit_Inspector :

Q11: Can you please explain to me why you skipped every single one of these questions without any explanation - and replied as if they didn’t exist.

Double_R  139 :

We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.

Fruit_Inspector 140 :

That is an assumption based on philosophical naturalism. You then forced your naturalistic presupposition onto my argument by forcing me to accept that "we know of nothing beyond the universe that exists." I reject that presupposition.

Fruit_Inspector 149 :

I don't know if anyone else has said this, but you may want to consider breaking up your responses as individual posts to those particular users.

Amoranemix 148 :

Why must we avoid infinite regress ?

Why should that cause be an eternal entity ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

Assuming the laws of thermodynamics, why could the universe not be eternal ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

[ . . . ]

So if you are strict enough then it would indeed seem that something cannot come from nothing. However, giving that you call the cause of the universe an entity, you are very lenient, suggesting that that nothing can be a lot of things.

Please explain why something cannot come from nothing.

[9] Have you considered the possibility of a time loop ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

You reasoned as follows :

A. Time has a beginning.

P1. If time has a beginning, then time coming into existence is a product of time.

C. Therefore, time cannot have a beginning.

Can you demonstrate P1 ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

[4] Almost everything in the universe is timeless, meaning it does not require time to exist.

What does it mean for time to come into existence if time already exists ?

The no boundary proposal seems to fit your description. If it is true then the answer would be yes.

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Ramshutu 160 :

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

Fruit_Inspector 161 :

So your understanding of how reality works is incorrect...

Fruit_Inspector 160 :

You'll have to forgive my request for clarity. I am, after all, just an incompetent buffoon who likes picking peanuts out of poop.[10] But I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear what you're saying.

How does the universe starting itself violate the law of causality ?

How does it violate entropy ?

How does it violate life from non-life ?

Scientific laws have an area of application. A phenomon outside the law's area of application may violate that law and that is no good reason to dismiss the phenomenon as impossible.

The Newtonian theory of gravity, conservation of mass, most triangle laws, Ohm's law, Bohr's atomic model and the ideal gas law are all invalid under certain circumstances.

So contrary to what you seem to believe, that is not evidence against the possibility of the universe having created itself.

You are merely arguing, not demonstrating, merely claiming even, that atheists are wrong. You are merely claiming (again), not even arguing, let alone demonstrating, that believing otherwise is irrational.