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

[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 it is essentially all that he is here to do.

[Bucky Ball]

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

Please quote where I said what a "First Cause would have to be like". 
Again, you don't get to tell me what's in my brain. 
I said/meant "if there were such a thing" it would have to be demonstrated. 
It's really not that difficult. 

So in fact you *do* say, that my agnostic position with regard to Pink Sparkly Unicorns is a metaphysic. LOL

I don't need an introduction, ... but thanks for confirming "arrogant and pedantic". 
I am not concerned with your beliefs, and if I need you to think for me, I'll be sure and ask. 
If I don't think about things BY YOUR DEFINITIONS, and methods, or how you find valuable, ... that's not my problem, and there is no reason why I should.
Most people learn that before they are 10.
Right now, there is no evidence for a First Cause, however that's defined, and no known coherent definition. whatever that actually means. 
If and when there is, I may consider changing from "no position".

[arewethereyet]

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

Please quote where I said what a "First Cause would have to be like". 
Again, you don't get to tell me what's in my brain. 
I said/meant "if there were such a thing" it would have to be demonstrated. 
It's really not that difficult. 

So in fact you *do* say, that my agnostic position with regard to Pink Sparkly Unicorns is a metaphysic. LOL

I don't need an introduction, ... but thanks for confirming "arrogant and pedantic". 
I am not concerned with your beliefs, and if I need you to think for me, I'll be sure and ask. 
If I don't think about things BY YOUR DEFINITIONS, and methods, or how you find valuable, ...  that's not my problem, and there is no reason why I should.
Most people learn that before they are 10.
Right now, there is no evidence for a First Cause, however that's defined, and no known coherent definition. whatever that actually means. 
If and when there is, I may consider changing from "no position".

C'mon Buck.  That book has almost 400 Amazon reviews.  It's got to be amazing.

It's Bel being Bel.  SSDD

[Angrboda]

Ooh. I could use that.

[Anomalocaris]

Please quote where I said what a "First Cause would have to be like". 
Again, you don't get to tell me what's in my brain. 
I said/meant "if there were such a thing" it would have to be demonstrated. 
It's really not that difficult. 

So in fact you *do* say, that my agnostic position with regard to Pink Sparkly Unicorns is a metaphysic. LOL

I don't need an introduction, ... but thanks for confirming "arrogant and pedantic". 
I am not concerned with your beliefs, and if I need you to think for me, I'll be sure and ask. 
If I don't think about things BY YOUR DEFINITIONS, and methods, or how you find valuable, ...  that's not my problem, and there is no reason why I should.
Most people learn that before they are 10.
Right now, there is no evidence for a First Cause, however that's defined, and no known coherent definition. whatever that actually means. 
If and when there is, I may consider changing from "no position".

C'mon Buck.  That book has almost 400 Amazon reviews.  It's got to be amazing.

It's Bel being Bel.  SSDD

What do you expect when his metaphysical position is “a statement is as true as any other if someone I like said it and some others people can be found who apparently profess to think that the someone was very wise”

[Belacqua]

Please quote where I said what a "First Cause would have to be like". 

Here is what you said in an earlier post:

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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying that we must have data to posit any sort of First Cause. 

And that until there is such data, we have no reason to consider any origin theories. 

The idea that a First Cause is something for which there would be data is an opinion about what a First Cause would have to be like. Platonists, among many others, disagree with you.

Again, I'm not saying your beliefs are bad ones. Lots of people these days think that we must have data to believe something.

[Bucky Ball]

Belacqua Wrote:

Obviously, when we total up all the stuff that's out there -- all the stuff that makes up the universe -- nearly all of it is clearly contingent….

So before you took us down this rabbit hole to take attention from this incorrect assertion,
did you have any support for it, or is it just hot air ? Do you usually just make unsupported assertions ?
Can you show your work, totaling it up, and if "nearly all of it is clearly contingent", what is the small part that isn't contingent, and how do you know ?

[Belacqua]

Can you show your work, totaling it up, and if "nearly all  of it is clearly contingent", what is the small part that isn't contingent, and how do you know ?

If a thing is contingent, it depends for its existence on the existence of something else. 

So for example, life on earth is dependent, directly or indirectly, on the sun.

The sun depends for its existence on the existence of hydrogen.

Hydrogen depends for its existence on the existence of sub-atomic particles.

Sub-atomic particles depend for their existence on the laws of nature being what they are. 

All of this depends for its existence on the existence of space/time. If there was no space/time, none of this would exist.

If you know of anything which is NOT dependent for its existence on space/time or the laws of nature, I would be interested to hear about it. 

Whether space/time and the laws of nature are dependent for their existence on some further thing, or whether they "just exist," is the subject of this thread.

[Deesse23]

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.

Metaphysics, like Aquinas is just a buzzword Bel likes to drop (or should i say "sprinkle the forum with"?) in order to remind everybody of his (perceived) intellectual superiority.

[Anomalocaris]

nothing shows off a person’s intellectual superiority as effectively as using what he imagine to be overpowering words, and dropping what he imagine to be overawing names,  to disguise the undisguiseablr fact that he is as stupid as he is disingenuous..