My views on objective morality

[Esquilax]

I'm saying in the same way  I know non-existence cannot be such that existence appears from it with no cause, the same is true of knowing why things can't constantly exist on their own with no cause. It's one and the same knowledge in fact. It's relying on the principle of causation with respect to existence.

Knowledge is demonstrated, not just asserted. All you've done thus far is say "I know it, I know it, I know it," over and over, but you're being asked how you know it, not what it is that you think you know. If you cannot point to anything that actually informs that claim then you don't, in any real sense, know it at all.

You can say it's not clear that existence can't come from non-existence with no cause. You can deny every little bit of knowledge you been given from God for all I care.

So, just to be clear: you're asserting that I secretly know you're right, because god, but I'm denying it? That's where your argument goes, from here? I'm really, genuinely asking here: it'll be very helpful in figuring out whether I need to put in any more time here, or whether you're just arguing in bad faith.

That said, my point is that, at the time that things began to exist, causative language ceases to matter. It's very possible that the universe's existence neither had a cause, nor came from nothing, that there's a third option, which is that at the point of the big bang the very idea that things "come from" anywhere doesn't apply. The big bang was the point at which time began, so there can't be a cause before that point, or even a need for one. There's no "before" the point that time began.

It's evidence. So let's add that to the properly basic things to deny, shall we? Anything to avoid accepting the most high, shall we?

So it really is your position that what you claim is just to be assumed without evidence? Seriously?

And you think it's a good idea to begin from such an insubstantial position and get that haughty, do you?