hopefulLandlord:
you've not been talking like someone who's read the book, I think you just googled now and got some info otherwise we shouldn't have had a back and forth on this from the first time I mentioned Krauss because I've said what he means by nothing is NOT what you would agree with him on, you can scroll up and see what I'm talking about

"Self-Eternal", so what's the proof that this first cause is eternal? what does "eternal" mean?
could you elucidate?

ambassagod:


That's why you shouldn't presume my stand.
The word "Eternal" as referred to be my explanation, can be explained in a lay man's understanding, according to the context, as something that never "CAME INTO EXISTENCE, NEVER STARTED TO EXIST". In other words, God never came into existence, hence UNCAUSED.

Any idea that presents GOD as an entity that came into existence, is simply referring to a "Caused entity" and as such disqualify itself from being an attribute of GOD.

hopefulLandlord:


so what made you sure this "First Cause" is also eternal?

ambassagod:


Simply because, if an entity that is presented to be a "first cause" is actually caused, it means it is simply "AN EFFECT TO A CAUSE". Take a bit to understand what that means before you continue.

hopefulLandlord:


please you've said a lot without answering, what makes you so sure that whatever the first cause is is actually "eternal"

Simply because, if an entity that is presented to be a "first cause" is actually caused, it means it is simply "AN EFFECT TO A CAUSE"

ambassagod:

AN HE BEGINS RUNNING AROUND A CIRCLE!!

My answer:

If this doesn't answer your question. Simply point out what I omitted. Good luck with that!

hopefulLandlord:


please, keyword there is eternal, "uncaused" doesn't automatically lead to eternal please, you're just equivocating

ambassagod:

I take it bit by bit.

We can only associate God's eternal reality in regards to time, for God's reality to be relatable.

Outside time, simply means that God is not eternal. Because, eternal has before and after.

Whereas for there to be GOD as a "First cause", there must not be a before and after. Because, he MUST BE before time. Otherwise, he must have been caused, "before" him. Which simply portrays a caused entity and not an uncaused entity.

So, my use of the term "eternal" is only valid with the scope of time. So I would be quote Charles, since he hold same view with me.

“The attribute of eternity means that God exists endlessly. [b]His existence extends endlessly backward and forward (from our viewpoint of time) without any interruption or limitation caused by succession of events[\b].” – Charles Ryrie1

ambassagod:
So, we can only see God as eternal with a viewpoint of an entity "Time".

So, when we say that God is self eternal uncaused caused, we are simply implying an entity, which is considered eternal under the scope of time and otherwise outside the scope of time, which is the first cause of everything that has ever existed.

I hope, you cope with this.

hopefulLandlord:


please, you're saying many things here

I'm asking why you're sure this "first cause" is eternal

I think the question is simple enough, what makes you so sure that first cause is definitely eternal?

ambassagod:

SIMPLE ANSWER:

I am inclined to believe, based on the logicality of my point, that God as an "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSED" must be eternal because the attribute of God's eternity simply means that God exists endlessly from a view point of time. So, outside time, eternity is brought to no effect.

hopefulLandlord:


please, you can define anything but do not attempt to define it into existence

what does it mean to be "outside the scope of time"?

you're still falling back to first cause, I'm asking what makes you sure that this first cause is definitely eternal, you are jumping from first cause to eternal and back without answering the question

hopefulLandlord:




please, get me clear cuz it seems I'm talking through you, "uncaused first cause" doesn't mean it has to be eternal, does it?

my question is asking why this uncaused cause definitely has to be eternal, can't this uncaused cause cause something and still not be eternal? please take your time to read this post well

ambassagod:


"OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF TIME" simply mean: before "SUN, STARS, MOON, DAY AND NIGHT(Seasons)" was caused INTO EFFECT. Because, "A DAY AND NIGHT" sums up the mean solar day UPON WHICH TIME CAN BE CALCULATED. That's why history could tell us, that even without a modern clock, our ancestors where able to figure out time using shadows brought into by SUN, MOON, STARS- SEASONS!


I answered why I believe the first cause to definitely eternal, with 2 different approach, before and after time.

hopefulLandlord:


please, you're still defining something into existence

You have freedom to define any damn fool thing you want, but just having a definition does not allow you to assert that something matching that definition exists.

Turn the bachelor example on its head. Imagine world power headed by an orange-headed despot decides, in a fit of madness next month (just for the sake of example, you see), to have all unmarried men of age either forcibly married, or killed, Now we have a valid definition of bachelor, but no actual bachelors to apply it to.

"Definitionalist" arguments are what you're giving here "outside time" "before time" "after time"

and don't make the naive mistake of thinking time is not independent of our solar system, that's a very bad mistake to make bro don't let it repeat itself

ambassagod:

What exactly is imaginary in my answer? Point them out and deny it's reality.


I don't know what you are referring to here. You can do better by referring to my response "word for word" and not sounding rage. Audience are following, take note.



This is outside the argument. I don't know what you are referring to in this. Anything? Point them out from my comments, "word-for-word".


Only if you can prove to me that time is not some empirical to be calculated, hence my response up there. If you couldn't containing mentally, you can actually ask me to simplify .

What I answered up there is pretty clear, point "word-for-word" on what I said that. Then, I wouldn't mind simplifying.



[b]A FACT: Time can't be alone as an entity, it MUST be dependent on something(seasons) upon which it can be measured. I DARE YOU TO REFUTE IT!!/b]

Time is dependent on seasons, that's why seasons could be used to determine time in the olden days, when there is no modern clock and time measuring systems, which a brought into effect by the activities of the sun, moon and stars!

hopefulLandlord:


please, time exists outside our solar system, Yes/No?

ambassagod:


NO!

It is measured within the effect of the solar system, "DAY AND NIGHT", brought to effect by the activities of solar bodies.

ambassagod:


NO!

It is measured within the effect of the solar system, "DAY AND NIGHT", brought to effect by the activities of solar bodies.

hopefulLandlord:



oh uh! "time" exists everywhere in the universe

ambassagod:


I don't disagree with you here, because. The universe includes includes the solar bodies. So I agree with you.

hopefulLandlord:


even WITHOUT solar bodies

ambassagod:


Then prove that. Since I disagree.

hopefulLandlord:


Space and time go together, one doesn't exist without the other, without solar bodies space can be present and that goes with time, its kinda complicated but I've simplified it as much as I can

ambassagod:


Now, you have just messed everything up!

Space is simply means "Vaccum". There is no relationship with a "time" and a "vacuum". In a vacuum, there isn't such time as it isn't so empirical to be MEASURED!

Note: Measurement is VERY CRUCIAL while defining time.

What you pointed to is an "Immeasurably entity", and doesn't stand the quality of time, as time can be measured.


Because, anything that is called "time" MUST BE MEASURABLE , otherwise it's not time.

Allow that to sink, TIME MUST BE MEASURABLE, for it stand true of it attribute.


So, tell me how YOU can measure "time" in a "vaccum".

This is quite not reasonable. Unless, you gotta prove it to be reasonable.

hopefulLandlord:


please, admit you goofed and stop running around, a simple Google search is all you need

time is only measured with clocks, that does not mean that it doesn't exist outside it

time exists even in a "vacuum" BTW there's no such thing as the vacuum you seem to be referring to

, vacuum is a region in space without any particles,

such doesn't exist anywhere in our universe just like Stephen Hawkins said "Empty space isn't empty", please learn the difference between not measuring something and claiming it doesn't exist