The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

As far as I can tell, nothing Penrose says speaks at all against an essential First Cause. Or something like the Neoplatonic One, or the Brahman, or the Buddhist Not-Two. 

...or pink unicorns.

Looks like someone is trying to shift the burden of proof. Nobody needs to falsify your argument. However YOU need to demonstrate that even the premises of it (like causation) are valid.

I am agnostic about Pink Sparkly unicorns.

[Deesse23]

...or pink unicorns.

Looks like someone is trying to shift the burden of proof. Nobody needs to falsify your argument. However YOU need to demonstrate that even the premises of it (like causation) are valid.

I am agnostic about Pink Sparkly unicorns.

How about the first Pink Sparkly unicorn?

[Belacqua]

There is no reason to posit any sort of First Cause UNTIL we have some data from the environment EXTERNAL to this universe. 
All you're doing is slapping a principle you think you know from a tiny part of this universe onto an environment you know absolutely nothing about.
There is no reason to consider ANY origin theories until there is data.

I understand that what you say is an inevitable conclusion from your metaphysical beliefs.

Those who hold to Neoplatonic, Vedantic, or Buddhist metaphysics disagree with you.

[Bucky Ball]

There is no reason to posit any sort of First Cause UNTIL we have some data from the environment EXTERNAL to this universe. 
All you're doing is slapping a principle you think you know from a tiny part of this universe onto an environment you know absolutely nothing about.
There is no reason to consider ANY origin theories until there is data.

I understand that what you say is an inevitable conclusion from your metaphysical beliefs.

Those who hold to Neoplatonic, Vedantic, or Buddhist metaphysics disagree with you.

Nope. 
I have no metaphysical beliefs,
and you don't get to tell me what I believe.
The most you get to do, is say that in YOUR belief system, you interpret what I say, in YOUR worldview, in a certain way.

[Belacqua]

I understand that what you say is an inevitable conclusion from your metaphysical beliefs.

Those who hold to Neoplatonic, Vedantic, or Buddhist metaphysics disagree with you.

Nope. 
I have no metaphysical beliefs,
and you don't get to tell me what I believe.
The most you get to do, is say that in YOUR belief system, you interpret what I say, in YOUR worldview, in a certain way.

The belief that things must be demonstrated through data to be considered true is a metaphysical belief. It cannot itself be demonstrated though data. 

It is a very common metaphysical belief among atheists these days. 

I'm not saying it's a bad belief.

[Bucky Ball]

Nope. 
I have no metaphysical beliefs,
and you don't get to tell me what I believe.
The most you get to do, is say that in YOUR belief system, you interpret what I say, in YOUR worldview, in a certain way.

The belief that things must be demonstrated through data to be considered true is a metaphysical belief. It cannot itself be demonstrated though data. 

It is a very common metaphysical belief among atheists these days. 

I'm not saying it's a bad belief.

Nope. 
Waiting for a demonstration of a specific idea, (First Cause) actually is the absence of a metaphysic.
I have no concept of First Cause. It's not a metaphysic I share. 
I'm actually not arrogant, pedantic or special enough to have a (snort) metaphysic.
Neither am I an atheist.

[Belacqua]

The belief that things must be demonstrated through data to be considered true is a metaphysical belief. It cannot itself be demonstrated though data. 

It is a very common metaphysical belief among atheists these days. 

I'm not saying it's a bad belief.

Nope. 
Waiting for a demonstration of a specific idea, (First Cause) actually is the absence of a metaphysic.
I have no concept of First Cause. It's not a metaphysic I share. 
I'm actually not pedantic or special enough to have a (snort) metaphysic.

You do have an idea about what a First Cause would have to be like. You said it earlier.

You said that it would have to be demonstrable through data. 

The belief that true things about the world must be demonstrable through data is a metaphysical belief. It cannot itself be proved by data. 

This is a good introduction:

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Very-...352&sr=8-1

[Silver]

Theists want to try to state their beliefs are metaphysical, as though there is any real science behind it. Even philosophically, metaphysics borders on theology. Therefore, when referring to the belief of theists, we should just stick to supernatural. Or better yet, unnatural.

[no one]

So this god character was just sitting around in all its infinite glory all by itself and decided it needed a universe to worship it? And that doesn't strike you as the ultimate in vanity?

If this god is a "he", it must have a real tiny dick.

[Anomalocaris]

Theists want to try to state their beliefs are metaphysical, as though there is any real science behind it. Even philosophically, metaphysics borders on theology. Therefore, when referring to the belief of theists, we should just stick to supernatural. Or better yet, unnatural.

 brandishing words like metaphysical as if they were magical smoke screen that can obscure the fact that an unevidenced and unneeded assertion about perceptible reality is a lie is what belaqua does and is essentially all that he is here to do.