The universe with no need of God

[Nihilist Virus]

good side is that you've targeted my response.

is what you've said means that these explanations are neither convenient nor invalid and we shouldn't challenge it ?
if yes then no harm to shot a dead body.

I can't understand what you are saying.

 

[Limo]

I can't understand what you are saying.

Are the 4 explanations of the godless model of the universe valid/convenient ?
if yes, why you're not happy that Ive commented on it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are the 4 explanations of the godless model of the universe valid/convenient ?
if yes, why you're not happy that Ive commented on it?

I don't know if they're true, if that's what you are asking. So yes, newsflash, we don't know how the universe came to be.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yes.



It can be both. The universe might not need anything to make it exist, but its current form can be a result of change.



You are smuggling a premise into your conclusion. You haven't shown that the universe is an effect. You've only shown that logically it might be an effect.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I explained that premise earlier in this thread, IIRC. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, ie it has a beginning and it is changing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I explained that premise earlier in this thread, IIRC. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, ie it has a beginning and it is changing.

No one knows that it had a beginning in the sense of being created. That means that the universe isn't known to be an "effect".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

I appreciate the effort. But you use "therefore" in premise 2 when it is unrelated to premise 1. I think you should form it like this:

1. If something exists, it is either "self-existent" or not.

That is still the law of non-contradiction. By "self-existent" I assume you mean "exists without having been caused." Then premise 2 would be:

2. If something is not "self-existent" then it is an effect of a previous cause.

3. Nothing can be "self-existent."

Maybe my explanation of how causality derives from the law of non-contradiction could have been smoother. But nevertheless it did demonstrate that fact. How do you know that nothing can be self existent?

nv: Perhaps you don't want to invoke premise 3 because you want God to exist and premise 3 would make his existence special pleading.

No, see above. My point is that a self existent being is logical.

nv: I know your thought is that the universe is an effect and requires a cause but that is not what you are tasked with proving. The task here is to prove that the "law" of causality follows from the law of non-contradiction, so discussion of the universe is entirely irrelevant.

I did prove that task above. I brought the universe into the discussion to get back to the OP. I could just as easily used Nihilist Virus requires a cause.

nv: You are implying that causality discusses things being caused to exist ex nihilo. I explained to you before that this is incoherent, for to bring about something from nothing via causality means to act on... what? Do you act on the universe to bring about the universe? Certainly not. Do you act on nothing? If so, then what you are doing is not causal.

No, read Hebrews, it says that the universe was created from things not visible, ie not detectable by humans.

nv: You completely forgot what you were trying to prove. Once again, your conclusion needs to be "every effect requires a cause." You shouldn't discuss the universe in your proof.

See above.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Maybe my explanation of how causality derives from the law of non-contradiction could have been smoother. But nevertheless it did demonstrate that fact. How do you know that nothing can be self existent?

I will assume that I correctly understood your definition of "self-existent" since you're asking me how I know nothing can be such. My answer to that question is that I don't know how nothing can be self-existent and I never claimed it is possible or impossible. I was only trying to salvage your logical syllogism because, frankly, it is a mess. Let's look at 1 and 2 again:

1. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. (Law of Non Contradiction).

I understand this to mean, "X cannot both exist and not exist."

Here, X can be anything, even God. X is a placeholder for anything, which is a necessary condition for the law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true. For if there is a thing that cannot be represented by X, then such a thing is not subject to the law of non-contradiction and thus the law of non-contradiction is not absolute. I don't hold that the law of non-contradiction is absolute, since I'm a nihilist, but I assume you do.

2. Therefore it is either self existent, ie has the power of being in itself or it is caused to be or exist, IOW an effect.

I understand this to mean, "X (the entity referred to as "something" in premise 1 and as "it" in premise 2) either exists without having been caused or else exists because it was caused to exist."

You've already committed a fallacy because the law of non-contradiction can refer to things that do not exist; in fact you explicitly say in premise 1 that X (something) either exists or doesn't exist, then in premise 2 you assume X exists and you evaluate the origins of its existence. You lead with a therefore, meaning that you are literally saying this:

X either exists or doesn't, therefore it exists either with or without being caused.

This is equivalent to saying, "Either A is true or false. Therefore, A is true."

So your second premise does not follow from premise 1 whatsoever. Your explanation is not just lacking in smoothness, but it is completely fallacious. To fix it, we can make premise 2 look like this:

Anything that exists either exists without having been caused to exist or else exists and was caused to exist.

This is actually just a regurgitation of the law of non-contradiction. In essence, your proof claims the same tautology twice and then concludes by not only asserting a point in question, but asserting a contentious statement that is irrelevant to the desired conclusion, "Every effect requires a cause." Even if I ignore the bad logic and take every statement of yours as true, your proof still fails because you are tasked with proving that every effect requires a cause. Proving that the universe requires a cause doesn't prove that everything requires a cause. If the universe is the only thing that needs a cause, you haven't even proven that a light bulb going on is an effect that requires a cause. So taking your fallacious argument as fact still shows very little about the topic at hand and you literally would have concocted a better proof if you just asserted the point in question... the actual point in question.

If you want to prove that the universe is an effect, that is irrelevant to this discussion. I didn't say to prove the "law" of causality by assuming the universe is an effect and you never claimed to require that premise. You said that the law of causality naturally follows from the law of non-contradiction. In a discussion about abstract logic, physical reality is not a concern. If your conclusion requires a huge assumption about physical reality, then it is not a "natural consequence" of your starting point.

I'll be happy to discuss whether the universe is an effect, and in fact if you had bothered to read the OP then you'd see that I already consider it to be a possibility. You would also see that such a conclusion is not sufficient to demonstrate that God is likely to exist.

I think you should realize now that you've been thoroughly dismantled and I hope you have the intellectual integrity to admit it. Clearly this is not your area of expertise. That's nothing to be ashamed of; your refusal to acknowledge the facts, on the other hand, is.

I fully acknowledge my limits. Being a math major, I don't know much about ancient history and for that reason I'm trying to submit the Jesus Myth Theory up for dissection to your Christian brethren. I'm fully admitting that the topic is beyond me both in terms of subject and in terms of meticulous research. Why can you not admit your limitations? Do you think I don't notice that you're completely out of your league in this debate? Do you think I'll lose respect for you if you start being honest?

 

[Ed1wolf]

No one knows that it had a beginning in the sense of being created. That means that the universe isn't known to be an "effect".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your first sentence makes no sense. You are assuming what we are trying to prove, you are assuming that it was not created. I am just going where the evidence takes us. Most cosmologists agree that the universe had a beginning, and we know that things that have a beginning ARE EFFECTS and therefore are CAUSED.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your first sentence makes no sense. You are assuming what we are trying to prove, you are assuming that it was not created.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that no one knows that the universe has a beginning in the sense you mean. That's not an assumption of any sort. If you really think that this is known, you are the one assuming what you are trying to prove.

I am just going where the evidence takes us.

No, you aren't. There is no evidence for that claim.

Most cosmologists agree that the universe had a beginning

A beginning in what sense? It is way too easy for you to read whatever you want into such a claim.

and we know that things that have a beginning ARE EFFECTS and therefore are CAUSED.

No, I don't know that. In fact, that strikes me as an incorrect statement.

Within the context of our universe, when we speak of things having a beginning, we usually mean that they arose through a process of change involving some sort of causal explanation. For instance, a factory assembles a cell phone from parts, and now a new cellphone has "begun" even though it is just the result of the assembly of its parts. However, when speaking about the universe itself, this language breaks down.

Beware the fallacy of composition. What something means within the context of the universe does not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. When speaking of the universe having a "beginning", it is important to be very clear just what one means.

We can say that the universe as it exists right now and for the past 14 billion years or so is at least partly the result of causation. However, that doesn't mean that the universe in its earliest instant is caused. The universe (or physical reality, if a distinction needs to be drawn) may be uncaused, and causes simply pertain to what happens within such.

If time has a beginning (which is what I think you are referring to with your "poll" of scientists) it may be time that is caused, not the universe as such. That is entirely consistent with physics and the evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that no one knows that the universe has a beginning in the sense you mean. That's not an assumption of any sort. If you really think that this is known, you are the one assuming what you are trying to prove.



No, you aren't. There is no evidence for that claim.



A beginning in what sense? It is way too easy for you to read whatever you want into such a claim.



No, I don't know that. In fact, that strikes me as an incorrect statement.

Within the context of our universe, when we speak of things having a beginning, we usually mean that they arose through a process of change involving some sort of causal explanation. For instance, a factory assembles a cell phone from parts, and now a new cellphone has "begun" even though it is just the result of the assembly of its parts. However, when speaking about the universe itself, this language breaks down.

Beware the fallacy of composition. What something means within the context of the universe does not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. When speaking of the universe having a "beginning", it is important to be very clear just what one means.

We can say that the universe as it exists right now and for the past 14 billion years or so is at least partly the result of causation. However, that doesn't mean that the universe in its earliest instant is caused. The universe (or physical reality, if a distinction needs to be drawn) may be uncaused, and causes simply pertain to what happens within such.

If time has a beginning (which is what I think you are referring to with your "poll" of scientists) it may be time that is caused, not the universe as such. That is entirely consistent with physics and the evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Everything made sense until the final sentence. What would it mean for time to be caused?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everything made sense until the final sentence. What would it mean for time to be caused?

By time, I mean change. If it is in the nature of entities to change, then the entities are the explanation (the cause) for their change. That pattern of change is what we perceive and conceptualize as "time".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

By time, I mean change. If it is in the nature of entities to change, then the entities are the explanation (the cause) for their change. That pattern of change is what we perceive and conceptualize as "time".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Time is not the same as change. Time, along with space, are the necessary conditions for change to occur. Change occurs in space over a duration of time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Time is not the same as change.

In my view, it is precisely the same from a physical perspective.

Time, along with space, are the necessary conditions for change to occur.

That is a wrong way to look at time, but it is a common error. Time isn't a "condition" or an entity unto itself separate from the existence of physical entities. It is simply a property of physical entities, and that property is identical to their power to change. Time in a changeless universe (one that has no power to change) would have no meaning.

Change occurs in space over a duration of time.

Yes, it does. However, that doesn't mean that time is something fundamentally other than change. The only distinction here is that time is a measure of (relative) change, but that is just an epistemological difference, not a physical one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In my view, it is precisely the same from a physical perspective.



That is a wrong way to look at time, but it is a common error. Time isn't a "condition" or an entity unto itself separate from the existence of physical entities. It is simply a property of physical entities, and that property is identical to their power to change. Time in a changeless universe (one that has no power to change) would have no meaning.



Yes, it does. However, that doesn't mean that time is something fundamentally other than change. The only distinction here is that time is a measure of (relative) change, but that is just an epistemological difference, not a physical one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Time isn't a "condition" or an entity unto itself separate from the existence of physical entities.

I meant the existence of time is a necessary condition for change to occur. I thought that was clear.

Time in a changeless universe (one that has no power to change) would have no meaning.

You seem to be using this to conclude that time is equivalent to change. But note that time would also have no meaning in a universe with no matter or energy. Does this mean that time is equivalent to matter and energy?

Einstein made certain statements about time. Do you intend to rewrite Einstein's theory of relativity?

 

[Ed1wolf]

I will assume that I correctly understood your definition of "self-existent" since you're asking me how I know nothing can be such. My answer to that question is that I don't know how nothing can be self-existent and I never claimed it is possible or impossible. I was only trying to salvage your logical syllogism because, frankly, it is a mess. Let's look at 1 and 2 again:

1. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. (Law of Non Contradiction).

I understand this to mean, "X cannot both exist and not exist."

Here, X can be anything, even God. X is a placeholder for anything, which is a necessary condition for the law of non-contradiction to be absolutely true. For if there is a thing that cannot be represented by X, then such a thing is not subject to the law of non-contradiction and thus the law of non-contradiction is not absolute. I don't hold that the law of non-contradiction is absolute, since I'm a nihilist, but I assume you do.

What is your evidence that the law of non contradiction is not absolute?

nv: 2. Therefore it is either self existent, ie has the power of being in itself or it is caused to be or exist, IOW an effect.

I understand this to mean, "X (the entity referred to as "something" in premise 1 and as "it" in premise 2) either exists without having been caused or else exists because it was caused to exist."

You've already committed a fallacy because the law of non-contradiction can refer to things that do not exist; in fact you explicitly say in premise 1 that X (something) either exists or doesn't exist, then in premise 2 you assume X exists and you evaluate the origins of its existence. You lead with a therefore, meaning that you are literally saying this:

X either exists or doesn't, therefore it exists either with or without being caused.

This is equivalent to saying, "Either A is true or false. Therefore, A is true."

No, in premise 1 I say something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. But I agree that it can apply to things that don't exist depending on what things you are referring to and what you mean by "exist".

nv: So your second premise does not follow from premise 1 whatsoever. Your explanation is not just lacking in smoothness, but it is completely fallacious. To fix it, we can make premise 2 look like this:

Anything that exists either exists without having been caused to exist or else exists and was caused to exist.

This is actually just a regurgitation of the law of non-contradiction. In essence, your proof claims the same tautology twice and then concludes by not only asserting a point in question, but asserting a contentious statement that is irrelevant to the desired conclusion, "Every effect requires a cause." Even if I ignore the bad logic and take every statement of yours as true, your proof still fails because you are tasked with proving that every effect requires a cause. Proving that the universe requires a cause doesn't prove that everything requires a cause. If the universe is the only thing that needs a cause, you haven't even proven that a light bulb going on is an effect that requires a cause. So taking your fallacious argument as fact still shows very little about the topic at hand and you literally would have concocted a better proof if you just asserted the point in question... the actual point in question.

I never claimed that I could prove that every effect requires a cause, I said that it was true by definition like every bachelor is an unmarried male. IOW I never denied it was a tautology. But tautologies can nevertheless be true. Also, I never said that I could PROVE that the universe was an effect, only that it had all the characteristics of an effect, ie it had a beginning and it changes. I also never claimed that only the universe requires a cause, there are of course other things that require a cause, you, for example require a cause.

nv: If you want to prove that the universe is an effect, that is irrelevant to this discussion. I didn't say to prove the "law" of causality by assuming the universe is an effect and you never claimed to require that premise. You said that the law of causality naturally follows from the law of non-contradiction. In a discussion about abstract logic, physical reality is not a concern. If your conclusion requires a huge assumption about physical reality, then it is not a "natural consequence" of your starting point.

I'll be happy to discuss whether the universe is an effect, and in fact if you had bothered to read the OP then you'd see that I already consider it to be a possibility. You would also see that such a conclusion is not sufficient to demonstrate that God is likely to exist.

I think you should realize now that you've been thoroughly dismantled and I hope you have the intellectual integrity to admit it. Clearly this is not your area of expertise. That's nothing to be ashamed of; your refusal to acknowledge the facts, on the other hand, is.

I fully acknowledge my limits. Being a math major, I don't know much about ancient history and for that reason I'm trying to submit the Jesus Myth Theory up for dissection to your Christian brethren. I'm fully admitting that the topic is beyond me both in terms of subject and in terms of meticulous research. Why can you not admit your limitations? Do you think I don't notice that you're completely out of your league in this debate? Do you think I'll lose respect for you if you start being honest?

I never claimed to be an expert in logic, I am a biologist. But I have studied the basics of the laws of logic and nothing I have presented above has been refuted with the goal I had in mind. And I think I have demonstrated the relationship between causality and the law of non-contradiction. I never was claiming to make an absolute proof for causality or God. My point is that the laws of logic and the evidence from science point to this universe needing a cause and that the most likely cause of this universe is God as defined by Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What is your evidence that the law of non contradiction is not absolute?



No, in premise 1 I say something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. But I agree that it can apply to things that don't exist depending on what things you are referring to and what you mean by "exist".




I never claimed that I could prove that every effect requires a cause, I said that it was true by definition like every bachelor is an unmarried male. IOW I never denied it was a tautology. But tautologies can nevertheless be true. Also, I never said that I could PROVE that the universe was an effect, only that it had all the characteristics of an effect, ie it had a beginning and it changes. I also never claimed that only the universe requires a cause, there are of course other things that require a cause, you, for example require a cause.


I never claimed to be an expert in logic, I am a biologist. But I have studied the basics of the laws of logic and nothing I have presented above has been refuted with the goal I had in mind. And I think I have demonstrated the relationship between causality and the law of non-contradiction. I never was claiming to make an absolute proof for causality or God. My point is that the laws of logic and the evidence from science point to this universe needing a cause and that the most likely cause of this universe is God as defined by Christianity and Judaism.

Let me call your attention to these two screen caps:

You seem incapable of even following your own argument. I'm not confident that you even know what you are arguing on behalf of or what conclusion you're trying to reach.

You claim to be a biologist, so I'll assume you have at the very least a Bachelor's in biology. I have, as I think I already mentioned, a BS in mathematics with some graduate coursework. So when you enter my arena, I manage my expectations and ask you to merely look up an argument that already exists and simply present it to support your own argument. Instead, you just bumble in completely unprepared with nothing but your own half-baked, aimless arguments. I would never insult you with ignorant arguments about biology, spewing misinformation and acting like I know what I'm talking about. I fully admit that I know very little about biology, and if I were to wrestle with a theological claim you might make in your area of expertise then I'd cite the experts.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Time isn't a "condition" or an entity unto itself separate from the existence of physical entities.

I meant the existence of time is a necessary condition for change to occur. I thought that was clear.

Was I not clear? Time isn't a "condition". That would be like saying that "length is a necessary condition for a 1+ dimensional object to occur". Length isn't a "condition". It's a measurement one makes or a way of conceptualizing something.

Time in a changeless universe (one that has no power to change) would have no meaning.

You seem to be using this to conclude that time is equivalent to change. But note that time would also have no meaning in a universe with no matter or energy. Does this mean that time is equivalent to matter and energy?

What I'm doing is pointing to how time relates to change. Time doesn't exist conceptually apart from change. Your example is a straw man.

Einstein made certain statements about time. Do you intend to rewrite Einstein's theory of relativity?

Which statements would need to be rewritten?

In any case, this really is an unnecessary diversion. All this started when I had argued that time may be caused. You may simply reword that so that "change" is caused if you view time differently than how I do. Problem solved.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Was I not clear? Time isn't a "condition". That would be like saying that "length is a necessary condition for a 1+ dimensional object to occur". Length isn't a "condition". It's a measurement one makes or a way of conceptualizing something.

Read it again. I said that the existence of time is a necessary condition for change to occur.

Time is a dimension, not a condition. The existence of time is a condition.

Your misunderstanding of what I said is baffling, and then you go on to accuse me of straw men.

What I'm doing is pointing to how time relates to change. Time doesn't exist conceptually apart from change. Your example is a straw man.

It's change that does not exist apart from time. You have it backwards. In order for change to occur, you need to have two different states: the initial and the final. This requires at minimum two instants of time.

Which statements would need to be rewritten?

Time is a fundamental issue in Einstein's theory and you seem to be redefining time. When you say that time doesn't exist apart from change, then you seem to be suggesting that change will be dilated at relativistic speeds. Why would that be the case? You will need to rewrite Einstein's theory to make it coherent.

In any case, this really is an unnecessary diversion. All this started when I had argued that time may be caused. You may simply reword that so that "change" is caused if you view time differently than how I do. Problem solved.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, it is nonsensical for time to be caused. It is nonsensical for change to be caused in a timeless realm. You already showed that you cannot provide a satisfactory definition for causality.

And don't worry if we're on an unnecessary diversion. It's my thread. But as far as I can see, nothing here is a diversion. If we haven't established what time or change is, then the conversation hasn't gotten off the ground. So agreement here is a "necessary condition" for dialogue.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Let me call your attention to these two screen caps:

You seem incapable of even following your own argument. I'm not confident that you even know what you are arguing on behalf of or what conclusion you're trying to reach.

You claim to be a biologist, so I'll assume you have at the very least a Bachelor's in biology. I have, as I think I already mentioned, a BS in mathematics with some graduate coursework. So when you enter my arena, I manage my expectations and ask you to merely look up an argument that already exists and simply present it to support your own argument. Instead, you just bumble in completely unprepared with nothing but your own half-baked, aimless arguments. I would never insult you with ignorant arguments about biology, spewing misinformation and acting like I know what I'm talking about. I fully admit that I know very little about biology, and if I were to wrestle with a theological claim you might make in your area of expertise then I'd cite the experts.

I notice you did not answer my question. Actually I have a Masters Degree in Biology. I see no inherent contradiction between my statements that you highlighted. If that is what you are claiming. What misinformation have I spewed?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I notice you did not answer my question.

I didn't answer the question because you don't even understand what was said. I said that I don't hold that the law of non-contradiction is absolute. That does not mean I'm claiming it is not absolute. There is a difference, and you indicate that you don't see the difference by asking me, "What is your evidence that the law of non contradiction is not absolute?"

I'm going to use Matt Dillahunty's gumball analogy. Suppose there is a gumball machine, and you make the claim that there is an even number of gumballs in it. And suppose I say that I don't accept your claim. Am I tacitly claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs? No. I merely reject your claim. So when I said I don't hold that the law of non-contradiction is absolute, I'm simply saying that no one has counted the gumballs and showed there is an even amount. There is no good reason to believe there is an odd or even number of gumballs, so rather than taking a wild guess it is best to simply say that we cannot determine the amount; similarly, it is best to say that we cannot determine the truth value of the law of non-contradiction.

The real reason we cannot know the truth value of the law of non-contradiction is because it is a tautological assertion. We simply assert it as true, so by definition it is true within any axiomatic system that we use. Does that mean that it is actually true in some cosmic sense? Does that mean that it is true in every possible universe? If we could define something and it would be so, would that not make us gods? I don't think you hold that we are gods, so I don't think you hold that we can just define something to be true and it will be so in all possible universes. So for us to know that something is true, we must prove it, but we can't prove the law of non-contradiction because it is the basic, primitive assumption that we use to prove all other things.

There is in fact good evidence that the law of non-contradiction does not even hold in our own universe. Electrons, for example, can simultaneously have an up-spin and a down-spin, analogous to saying that a person is both alive and dead at the same time. A physical manifestation of a contradiction, ergo the law of non-contradiction is not absolute... pending, of course, humanity's full and exhaustive theory of quantum mechanics.

Actually I have a Masters Degree in Biology.

Congratulations on your achievement earned by your hard work and dedication. You would do well to make theistic arguments in your area of expertise.

I see no inherent contradiction between my statements that you highlighted. If that is what you are claiming.

You don't have to contradict yourself to be wrong. You could also just make no sense whatsoever.

But if you want to be technical, the claim that 5=7 is not a contradiction. It's a violation of another logical law, the law of identity. To truly contradict yourself, you'd have to say that 5 does not equal 5.

Colloquially, though, your statements that I highlighted constitute either a contradiction or an unintelligible argument. Let's examine the statements again:

Me: Which is it? Is it true by definition or is it a logical conclusion from the starting assumption that the law of non-contradiction is true?

You: It is both.

Here, we were discussing your claim that the "law" of causality (and what exactly is this, by the way?) follows from the law of non-contradiction. And you even went on trying to prove this in following posts. Then you go on to say this:

I never claimed that I could prove that every effect requires a cause, I said that it was true by definition like every bachelor is an unmarried male. IOW I never denied it was a tautology.

I agree that you never denied it was a tautology. But you also said you could prove it (and by the way, proving a tautology is already nonsensical), and you even tried to do so. You seemed somewhat pleased with your presentation, although you said it was rough around the edges. Now you are saying that you never claimed you could prove that every effect requires a cause.

Now, if you're NOT claiming you could prove that every effect requires a cause, but you ARE claiming you can (and did) prove the "law" of causality follows from the law of non-contradiction, then I can only conclude that you're saying that the "law" of causality is NOT that "Every effect requires a cause." So may I ask what you think the "law" of causality is, or what it states? Because as far as I can tell, your claim that the "law" of causality is a logical law (as opposed to a physical law) is already nonsensical, and on top of this you do not even seem to be defining this "law" as stating that "Every effect requires a cause" which further makes your position unintelligible.

The alternative, of course, is that you have a semi-intelligible definition of the "law" of causality but that you are indeed contradicting yourself in the passages that I highlighted a couple posts ago.

To be somewhat charitable, I will note that when you claimed to be able to prove the "law" of causality from the law of non-contradiction, you either lost track of what you were even trying to prove or else you had no interest in proving the "law" of causality despite claiming to be able to do so. Instead, you ended up concluding in your attempted proof that the universe required a cause. This does not establish the "law" of causality or even remark on what it is, but rather provide one example of it occurring. So perhaps that is what you meant when you said that you "never claimed that [you] could prove that every effect requires a cause." But then we are back to asking ourselves, "What on earth is the 'law' of causality that follows from the law of non-contradiction?" Something that occurred once but does not govern behavior in all instances is not a law. So the third way in which you could be wrong is that you simply do not even know what your own position is.

I think we have seen quite conclusively that you are wrong because either:

1.) You are contradicting yourself, or
2.) Your position is unintelligible, or
3.) You do not even know your own starting assumptions and conclusion

What misinformation have I spewed?

Oh brother...