The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism!
The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

I flitter between agnosticism and atheism. Prolly leaning more to the later

justcool:
The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism!
The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

Great man, great friend, I salute this work. More grease sir!
Brilliant one.

PS: Personally, I propose that the fact that a self-existent principle must perforce exist can be logically and intuitively inferred, but its nature cannot be known by mankind, being too remote and transcendental an element.

DeepSight:


Great man, great friend, I salute this work. More grease sir!
Brilliant one.

PS: Personally, I propose that the fact that a self-existent principle must perforce exist can be logically and intuitively inferred, but its nature cannot be known by mankind, being too remote and transcendental an element.

You and/or agnostics love to say that god is “unknowable” or “cannot be known by mankind” yet you and/or agnostics simultaneously suggest a singular entity you call “god” or “self existent principle”.
Aren’t you describing an attribute of this “unknowable” god by describing it as singular?
I mean, why do you claim it’s unknownable while simultaneously describing it as a “self existent principle”?

Why not “self existent principles”?
Why must it be “it” instead of “they” or truly “indescribable”?

It seems people who were reared in the monotheist tradition hold on to the dogma of a singular god when they make claims about their agnostic ”unknowable”.

I’m agnostic about Zogdon Tien IV and claim it’s unknowable. Are you agnostic about Zogdon Tien IV? Probably, because you truly do not know what Zogdon Tien IV is or are and if I claim it/they is “transcendence” and beyond human understanding then you can assert that whatever it is, or they are, is unknowable.
But then you have to ask how I know that Zogdon Tien IV is an “it” not ”they” when ZT IV is supposedly “unknowable”

justcool:
The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism! The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

Why not creators? Why should it be one?

“The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists”

So we ask the agnostic, what is god?
If it’s a “creator”, where is the evidence of this god creating anything?

Why should it be one?
What’s the nature of this “god” thing that it has to create by its lonesome?

What is in the nature or character of this “god”’ that precludes the existence of other “gods”

Why one god? Why not two gods? Why not three gods? Why note π gods? Yes, pi gods as in 3.1415926535……… gods?

jaephoenix:
I flitter between agnosticism and atheism. Prolly leaning more to the later

I don't find them mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief claim.

A - theism = Absence of belief in god.

(A)Gnosticism relates more with knowledge and confidence levels.

And since knowledge is a subset of belief both can co-exist.

So we can have an Agnostic atheist or a Gnostic theist.

KnownUnknown:


You and/or agnostics love to say that god is “unknowable” or “cannot be known by mankind” yet you and/or agnostics simultaneously suggest a singular entity you call “god” or “self existent principle”.
Aren’t you describing an attribute of this “unknowable” god by describing it as singular?
I mean, why do you claim it’s unknownable while simultaneously describing it as a “self existent principle”?

Why not “self existent principles”?
Why must it be “it” instead of “they” or truly “indescribable”?

It seems people who were reared in the monotheist tradition hold on to the dogma of a singular god when they make claims about their agnostic ”unknowable”.

I’m agnostic about Zogdon Tien IV and claim it’s unknowable. Are you agnostic about Zogdon Tien IV? Probably, because you truly do not know what Zogdon Tien IV is or are and if I claim it/they is “transcendence” and beyond human understanding then you can assert that whatever it is, or they are, is unknowable.
But then you have to ask how I know that Zogdon Tien IV is an “it” not ”they” when ZT IV is supposedly “unknowable”

I appreciate your point of view. Even as I wrote what I did, I understood how it would be viewed as contradictory. Let me try to explain a bit. But just to remove a few points, let me make it clear that the force and necessity of language is all that compels me to use words such as God, god, it/he/she and the like. In truth all I am saying is that I believe that it can be logically deduced that there is a first cause of this reality and from that, I also believe it can further be logically deduced that -

1. That first cause can not at the same time be its own effect. In short, it must stand beyond it in some sense. Hence we say that it must be transcendent simply beyond this reality or universe. This is actually not a description of its nature anymore than saying that DeepSight is in outerspace describes Deepsights nature. It just describes DeepSights location. I understand that it is hard to speak of a location with regard to God, so please equally understand that I dont mean the example in a literal sense.

2. I can further logically deduce that it must be self-existent. Now this arises from the fact that if it is indeed the cause of all other causes, it must itself be uncaused. In this regard, I am stepping things up to refer to whatever is the trigger or cause of all realities/ dimensions/ universes. To put it in simple terms, In short, it must be a necessary as opposed to contingent thing. It must be a thing that exists of itself. Its very nature could only be an existent nature. I realize that this is indeed an attribute. However it is so necessary and so fundamental an attribute that I see it as the one thing we cannot avoid. It is thus why I rather called it a principle. The self existent principle.

There are different bands of agnostics. So perhaps this is my peculiar brand of agnosticism. I have never really called myself an agnostic per se. Most people on this forum remember me as a Deist. So far, and no further. And I really dont think I can be called a pure agnostic to be frank. Because a pure agnostic will tell you that we simply cannot know anything whatsoever on this matter. I would rather say that beyond the minimum that can be logically inferred, God is unknowable. In this I mean His nature - viz - Is He invested in Creation or not. What is His moral compass like (I cant imagine such at all). What is His desire and goal for creation. What is His purpose in creating? Things like these and more. God remains unknowable for me. And frankly, I think, too remote to be known in any proper sense by anyone. Except perhaps at a light and intuitive level. And even at that. Hmmm.

Bacteriologist:


I don't find them mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief claim.

A - theism = Absence of belief in god.

(A)Gnosticism relates more with a knowledge and confidence levels.

And since knowledge is a subset of belief both can co-exist.

So we can have an Agnostic atheist or a Gnostic theist.

[Editted]

Knowledge is like food for the mind just as the literal food brings satisfaction and nourishment knowledge also brightens the countenance of a living soul.
So the first question we need to answer is:

Why do humans feel the need for a SUPREME BEING?

We all know why we eat literal food therefore we need to figure out why we often try to have the knowledge about our Creator!

DeepSight:


I appreciate your point of view. Even as I wrote what I did, I understood how it would be viewed as contradictory. Let me try to explain a bit. But just to remove a few points, let me make it clear that the force and necessity of language is all that compels me to use words such as God, god, it/he/she and the like. In truth all I am saying is that I believe that it can be logically deduced that there is a first cause of this reality and from that, I also believe it can further be logically deduced that -

If causes and effects were straightforward and not a complex set of factors acting simultaneously, the first cause argument could stand. But nature can’t be said to be simple “cause and effect”. Take daylight for example?
What is the “cause” of daylight? Think about it carefully and see if its a simple case of “cause and effect”

DeepSight:


1. That first cause can not at the same time be its own effect. In short, it must stand beyond it in some sense.

Since this first cause has no support and can’t be logically deduced, it can have whatever attribut you want. It wholly depends on simplifying existence to a series of causes. If you do that, there is no reason to terminate this chain of cause at the “first cause”

This first cause or god you speak of, why should it be the first cause. Why not the 10th cause?
Maybe there is a first cause that caused the effect that became the second cause that caused the effect that became the third cause………became the ninth cause that caused the effect that became the tenth cause that caused the universe.

If I accept your first cause that is “unknowable”, can I go a bit further and ask about the second cause? Maybe it is knowable. Yes?

DeepSight:

Hence we say that it must be transcendent simply beyond this reality or universe.

What does it mean to be beyond this reality or universe. Is the first cause the only thing that is beyond this reality or are there other…….causes.
Frankly, the deist’s claim is just as arbitrary and unfounded as the theist’s. These are just claims that really do not mean anything. “Transcendence”. “Beyond the universe” ………..”to infinity and beyond”

DeepSight:

This is actually not a description of its nature anymore than saying that DeepSight is in outerspace describes Deepsights nature.

I agree that it isn’t a description but at least “Deepsight in outer space”’make sense unlike “Deepsight is transcendent and beyond outer space”.

DeepSight:

It just describes DeepSights location. I understand that it is hard to speak of a location with regard to God, so please equally understand that I dont mean the example in a literal sense.

It’s not hard to speak about God. It’s just impossible to make sense when you speak about God. God remains an idea that is shaped by whoever is espousing it. That includes attributes and location. I even created a God the other day called McMickie the Leprechaun. It will drown you in Guinness if you offend. Of course, McMickie is timeless, spaceless, immaterial…………..and He just told me that He is also Maximally Great. And yes, he sits on my shoulder.

DeepSight:

2. I can further logically deduce that it must be self-existent.

We can say the universe (including humans. An error in thinking caused by most religions and philosophy is regarding humans as separate from the universe as if we aren’t inherently a part of the universe) is self existent. The universe exists and there is does seem to be direction. The universe is continuously morphing “self existently”.


Why can’t the universe be the self existent principle. The universe exists and its fundamental nature is unknowable and its functioning is beyond human understanding. You don’t have to go “beyond” the universe to find “god”.
And before you say it, let me say that the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe but the expansion for universe. So, the universe can be as “eternal” as god is claimed to be because it has no beginning and the expansion gave rise to space time or the “first cause” of time.

DeepSight:

Now this arises from the fact that if it is indeed the cause of all other causes, it must itself be uncaused.

This statement is just a wild claim and is not factual. It doesn’t even say anything.
Now this arises from the fact that if it is indeed the beginning of all other beginnings, it must itself be unbegun. Why? Because I said so.

DeepSight:

In this regard, I am stepping things up to refer to whatever is the trigger or cause of all realities/ dimensions/ universes.

What if these realities and dimensions you speak of have their own uncaused first cause. Why should your first cause of reality A be the first cause of reality B and C? Simple, because you say so.

DeepSight:


To put it in simple terms, In short, it must be a necessary as opposed to contingent thing. It must be a thing that exists of itself. Its very nature could only be an existent nature. I realize that this is indeed an attribute. However it is so necessary and so fundamental an attribute that I see it as the one thing we cannot avoid. It is thus why I rather called it a principle. The self existent principle.

Your whole argument is god exists because it is the nature of god to exist. Maybe it’s the nature of gods to exist? There is no reason to stop making claims at one, you can multiple this “self existent” thing indefinitely. Their nature is necessary and fundamental and not contingent on anything.

DeepSight:

There are different bands of agnostics. So perhaps this is my peculiar brand of agnosticism. I have never really called myself an agnostic per se. Most people on this forum remember me as a Deist. So far, and no further. And I really dont think I can be called a pure agnostic to be frank. Because a pure agnostic will tell you that we simply cannot know anything whatsoever on this matter.

A “pure agnostic” is a tad bit dishonest or cowardly in my opinion. But whatever.

DeepSight:

I would rather say that beyond the minimum that can be logically inferred, God is unknowable.

Theirs is nothing that can be logically inferred without an avalanche of fallacies.

DeepSight:

In this I mean His nature - viz - Is He invested in Creation or not.

Now we know the gender. I’m guessing “Creation” means he “created” the universe. How does he and did he create?

DeepSight:

What is His moral compass like (I cant imagine such at all). What is His desire and goal for creation. What is His purpose in creating? Things like these and more. God remains unknowable for me. And frankly, I think, too remote to be known in any proper sense by anyone. Except perhaps at a light and intuitive level. And even at that. Hmmm.

He sounds very human. Just give it whatever morals and purpose you want, after all you already know the gender.

DeepSight:


Great man, great friend, I salute this work. More grease sir!
Brilliant one.

PS: Personally, I propose that the fact that a self-existent principle must perforce exist can be logically and intuitively inferred, but its nature cannot be known by mankind, being too remote and transcendental an element.

Oga DeepSight!
I salut you, my friend. Longest time! The above submission is quite logical and resonates with me

DeepSight:
-

1. That first cause can not at the same time be its own effect.

This might not be true because it is possible to show at the quantum level that A can cause B and B cause A. If like some scientists postulate the big bang was a result of perturbations at the quantum level then it stands to reason that a true first cause might not exist.

@ KnownUnknown -

I really like your response.

As in, I really, really, really, really love it.
There's a lot in there though, and frankly, when I wrote what you responded to, I didnt think I was expressing myself properly. Or with proper nuance and refinement.

Its a busy day, and it will take some doing to pick through your very well reasoned responses.
But I will.

Thank you for taking the time - its the sort of thing I really appreciate.
Bless.

LordReed:


This might not be true because it is possible to show at the quantum level that A can cause B and B cause A. If like some scientists postulate the big bang was a result of perturbations at the quantum level then it stands to reason that a true first cause might not exist.

The reason I do not accept this argument is simple. Matter, being tangible, is also mutable. Anything that is mutable cannot be self-existent. A self existent thing is intrinsically and necessarily intangible and immutable.

@KnownUnknown, please note this. Because it is cardinal in what will follow later as my response to you.

MaxInDHouse:
Knowledge is like food for the mind just as the literal food brings satisfaction and nourishment knowledge also brightens the countenance of a living soul.
So the first question we need to answer is:

Why do humans feel the need for a SUPREME BEING?

We all know why we eat literal food therefore we need to figure out why we often try to have the knowledge about our Creator!

Stay away, MadMax. This convo is way above your paygrade

DeepSight:


The reason I do not accept this argument is simple. Matter, being tangible, is also mutable. Anything that is mutable cannot be self-existent. A self existent thing is intrinsically and necessarily intangible and immutable.

@KnownUnknown, please note this. Because it is cardinal in what will follow later as my response to you.

How do you know that anything can be self existent? Or what leads you to believe that a thing can have such an attribute?

justcool:
The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism!
The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

Which of the gods? Yahweh?

justcool:
The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism!
The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

How did the agnostic come up with the idea of a “god”, where did he learn that word from?
Is just like me proposing whether “htjshsidnf” exist or not.
Now, what’s “htjshindf”? How did i come up with it?
Let the agnostics explain how they came up with “god” to know if it’s something that can exist or not.
Agnostics are just wannabe Monotheists!

MaxInDHouse:
Knowledge is like food for the mind just as the literal food brings satisfaction and nourishment knowledge also brightens the countenance of a living soul.
So the first question we need to answer is:

Why do humans feel the need for a SUPREME BEING?

We all know why we eat literal food therefore we need to figure out why we often try to have the knowledge about our Creator!

Meanwhile MadMax, your folks are now doing exploits.
See this thread where an innocent looking JW lady duped people
https://www.nairaland.com/7538833/innocent-looking-female-assistant-carried

Maynman:


How did the agnostic come up with the idea of a “god”, where did he learn that word from?
Is just like me proposing whether “htjshsidnf” exist or not.
Now, what’s “htjshindf”? How did i come up with it?
Let the agnostics explain how they came up with “god” to know if it’s something that can exist or not.
Agnostics are just wannabe Monotheists!

That was my exact thought when I was going through DeepInsight's post

LordReed:


How do you know that anything can be self existent? Or what leads you to believe that a thing can have such an attribute?

A number of things.

1. For anything to exist (and things exist), something or the other must self-exist. Otherwise nothing will exist. Happy to expatiate on this, but dwell on it carefully.

2. Time (Real Time - Infinite Time) is self-existent. Naturally.

3. Space (Infinite Space - Real Space) is self-existent. Naturally.

Maynman:


How did the agnostic come up with the idea of a “god”, where did he learn that word from?
Is just like me proposing whether “htjshsidnf” exist or not.
Now, what’s “htjshindf”? How did i come up with it?
Let the agnostics explain how they came up with “god” to know if it’s something that can exist or not.
Agnostics are just wannabe Monotheists!

There is a clear idea of what is referred to by the word "God" and that idea is that of a being said to be the source of creation. The language used is irrelevant, the idea exists in all traditions and at all times in history.

By contrast, "htjshsidnf" has no meaning. What does it mean, please tell me, and is it an idea people of all traditions have haboured throughout history?

DeepSight:


A number of things.

1. For anything to exist (and things exist), something or the other must self-exist. Otherwise nothing will exist. Happy to expatiate on this, but dwell on it carefully.

2. Time (Real Time - Infinite Time) is self-existent. Naturally.

3. Space (Infinite Space - Real Space) is self-existent. Naturally.

These seems like leaps of intuition, is there anything substantive backing it up?

DeepSight:


There is a clear idea of what is referred to by the word "God" and that idea is that of a being said to be the source of creation. The language used is irrelevant, the idea exists in all traditions and at all times in history.

By contrast, "htjshsidnf" has no meaning. What does it mean, please tell me, and is it an idea people of all traditions have haboured throughout history?

Please tell me the clear idea of the definition of God? What’s the etymology?
If the idea of god exist in different traditions, that means we have different gods. The Christian god called yahweh is different from arabic god called allah or the hindu god called brahma etc.

And if agnostic know the clear meaning of god, why are they confused if god exist or not?

htjshsidnf Means the creator of God.

DeepSight:


A number of things.

1. For anything to exist (and things exist), something or the other must self-exist. Otherwise nothing will exist. Happy to expatiate on this, but dwell on it carefully.

Why do you think humans can not self exist but a “god” can? What’s the parameters?

Maynman:

Why do you think humans can not self exist but a “god” can? What’s the parameters?

A self existent thing IS.

It does not grow or evolve in the way that humans do. Neither can it be born or die.

It also cannot be physical. It is necessarily intangible and immutable.

DeepSight:


A self existent this IS.


It does not grow or evolve in the way that humans do. Neither can it be born or die.

It also cannot be physical. It is necessarily intangible and immutable.

We have evidence that humans exist and can be birthed and also die, where is the evidence of this god or deity? And all the claims you attribute to it.
You are making assumptions over assumptions, you are just using the idea of your monotheistic religion.

How can something that’s not physical create something physical?
How can something intangible create that which is tangible?
Or something immutable create something that’s mutable?

Maynman:

We have evidence that humans exist and can be birthed and also die, where is the evidence of this god or deity? And all the claims you attribute to it.

There is more than sufficient logic to infer the existence of that ultimate element in which we say inheres the self-existent principle at the root of reality. The fact that we are compelled, by limitation of language, to use the word "God" - common to many other usages, should do nothing to detract from this.

You are making assumptions over assumptions, you are just using the idea of your monotheistic religion.

I dont have a religion, I am completely irreligious and if you look at my history on this platform you will find it richly spiced with condemnation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike.

Now, having said that, the below are truly good questions. Beware, I dont have all the answers, I just have my thoughts which I will share in brief.

How can something that’s not physical create something physical?
of How can something intangible create that which is tangible?
Or something immutable create something that’s mutable?

I dont believe that the physical world was directly created by the ultimate intangible self-existent principle. Rather my view rests within a kind of natural radiation arising from the source which over zillions of unfathomable gradations causes various dimensions to come into existence one of which eventually coalesces at a certain level as the physical universe.

LordReed:


These seems like leaps of intuition, is there anything substantive backing it up?

It only seems like leaps of intuition when one has not settled down carefully to consider it. Lets start with the first statement. I said -

DeepSight:


A number of things.

1. For anything to exist (and things exist), something or the other must self-exist. Otherwise nothing will exist. Happy to expatiate on this, but dwell on it carefully.

The logic commences as follows:

1 - Something cannot come from nothing
2 - As such, the universe comes from, or is, something. It is not nothing.
3 - Nothingness, by definition, does not exist - it is "no-thing."
4 - Thus as things do exist, they evidently have either always existed, or came from other things that have always existed
5 - Material things are not eternal in the past: not even when considered as constant change or flow in terms of energy and matter: this is because a thing that is eternal in the past cannot be a mutable thing. Why is this? It is so because all change requires a trigger, and a thing has been changing forever in the past would never even exist. What you have there is an impossible infinite regress which cannot ground its existence.

6 - Thus, only immaterial, intangible things are eternal in the past. And such things are permanent, necessary in the philosophical sense, non contingent and immutable.

2. Time (Real Time - Infinite Time) is self-existent. Naturally.

3. Space (Infinite Space - Real Space) is self-existent. Naturally.

Do you dispute these? I thought we had been over these before?

DeepSight:


There is more than sufficient logic to infer the existence of that ultimate element in which we say inheres the self-existent principle at the root of reality. The fact that we are compelled, by limitation of language, to use the word "God" - common to many other usages, should do nothing to detract from this.



I dont have a religion, I am completely irreligious and if you look at my history on this platform you will find it richly spiced with condemnation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike.

Now, having said that, the below are truly good questions. Beware, I dont have all the answers, I just have my thoughts which I will share in brief.



I dont believe that the physical world was directly created by the ultimate intangible self-existent principle. Rather my view rests within a kind of natural radiation arising from the source which over zillions of unfathomable gradations causes various dimensions to come into existence one of which eventually coalesces at a certain level as the physical universe.

Science don’t work on logic, they work on fact and data, and even so show me the sufficient logic of the element and not elements.

But you only learn the concept of “god” through religion. You said the idea of “god” is in most traditions, please mention 2 of those traditions.

Well, you believe what you don’t Know.
Is radiation not physical, radiation do mutates and it’s tangible, so how can radiation come from a source that is not physical, intangible and immutable?

DeepSight:


It only seems like leaps of intuition when one has not settled down carefully to consider it. Lets start with the first statement. I said -



The logic commences as follows:

1 - Something cannot come from nothing
2 - As such, the universe comes from, or is, something. It is not nothing.
3 - Nothingness, by definition, does not exist - it is "no-thing."
4 - Thus as things do exist, they evidently have either always existed, or came from other things that have always existed
5 - Material things are not eternal in the past: not even when considered as constant change or flow in terms of energy and matter: this is because a thing that is eternal in the past cannot be a mutable thing. Why is this? It is so because all change requires a trigger, and a thing has been changing forever in the past would never even exist. What you have there is an impossible infinite regress which cannot ground its existence.

6 - Thus, only immaterial, intangible things are eternal in the past. And such things are permanent, necessary in the philosophical sense, non contingent and immutable.

There's a huge gap between 5 & 6 that your intuition seems to be leaping over. That gap starts at no material thing is eternal. Ok we can agree on that but then you haven't showed how immaterial things can be eternal or how they possess this attribute, you simply jumped to that conclusion.

Do you dispute these? I thought we had been over these before?

Yes. Your no 5 statement above already shows that space and time cannot be self existent. And even if they were that would mean that there doesn't need to be a first cause, space and time came into being by their self.

LordReed:


There's a huge gap between 5 & 6 that your intuition seems to be leaping over. That gap starts at no material thing is eternal. Ok we can agree on that but then you haven't showed how immaterial things can be eternal or how they possess this attribute, you simply jumped to that conclusion.

I didnt jump to that conclusion, it follows naturally: and in following naturally please you have to look at 1 - 4 and take them on board as well.

Maybe it will help you to try to picture nothingness. The stagnant, borderless, infinite void. Now, we understand that "nothingness" does not exist and thus this borderless infinite void is not nothing, it is something.

It is real, infinite space and it is intangible. This is why I have often described this real/infinite space as "the void into which things are interpolated." In the same way, real/infinite time cannot be delimited. It is, as I have often said, 'the void into which events are interpolated." It is perfectly intangible and immaterial and per force self existent. It cannot but exist, it is fundamental.

Yes. Your no 5 statement above already shows that space and time cannot be self existent. And even if they were that would mean that there doesn't need to be a first cause, space and time came into being by their self.

Spacetime as conceived in today's physics is a material thing and this is why I was careful to say "real/ infinite" time and "real/infinite" space - a distinction which I believe I have made to you before, and which I have just described above.