That there must be an event that is uncaused is reasoning that I think can only apply to linear models of the universe.

One alternative to this are the cyclical models of the universe. Here, there would be no uncaused events, for there would be an endless procession of Big Bangs followed by near ends of the universe that again result in Big Bangs, etc. ... this, again, without end or beginning. — javra

Not every event can have an event that causes it, for then we'll have an actual infinity of events and you can't have an actual infinity of anything. — Bartricks

As an aside, the unmoved mover of old time philosophies - i.e. the uncaused cause - can neither be a sentient being nor a thing: Sentience only occurs via the experience of perpetual change and, hence, movement; and things can only be in some form of process and, hence, movement. — javra

Your insistence that the uncaused causer cannot be a 'thing' is false. Certainly you've said nothing to support it. — Bartricks

Yup, we speak in different lexicons. It seems far too different to have any meaningful conversation.

Hahaha, coward. You mean I reason and you stipulate?

Bartricks said "causer" rather than "cause". So I have literally no idea - no idea - at all what he is talking about. And then he did some nasty arguing thing where he demonstrated that things I don't want to be true are true. And that was mean and so now I am going to climb mount righteousness and go and find someone else to stipulate at. Goodbyer.

:rofl: :joke: :cool: ciao

Do you mean "Ciao!"? I have literally no idea what 'Ciao' means. 'Ciao!' yes. But Ciao? Nope. I can't see how we're going to communicate effectively when you say 'Ciao' and yet I am used to 'ciao!'

The cushion is being indented. — Bartricks

If the cushion has always been indented, then it is not being indented, it simply is indented.

If we were to take the ball off the cushion, and someone asked us the cause of the indent on it, we would say "there was a ball on it" - yes? — Bartricks

No, not if I knew that the cushion had always been indented; then I would say, "Nothing caused the indent, it has always been that way."

The problem with appealing to what is supposedly "intuitive" is that it is not necessarily the same for everyone.

There wouldn't be a dent there if the ball wasn't on it. The ball is the cause of the indent - at every point in time the ball is the cause of the indent, a sustaining cause - despite the fact the ball has always been there and so never came to cause the indent.
I mean, that's the point of the example. It shows that something can be causing something else - and whatever you say, regular people would say that the ball was the cause of the indent and would not ask first "has it always been on the cushion?" - without being a prior cause.

There wouldn't be a dent there if the ball wasn't on it. — Bartricks

How do you know that, if the ball was always on it? Maybe that is just the natural shape of the cushion, and the ball has nothing to do with it.

Suppose instead that a cushion is manufactured with an indent that happens to be just the right size and shape for someone to place the ball there years later. If I subsequently ask you what is causing the indent, what would you say?

I will attempt to address your second question in how to respond to Hume. Recently I was introduced to something call the Grim Reaper Paradox and when altered, shows that a world with an infinite regress cannot exist.
The original paradox goes something like this:
There are an infinite number of Grim Reapers that each have a deadline at which he is scheduled to kill person X. If X is alive at a time that a Grim Reaper is scheduled to kill X, he will kill X. If X is not alive, the Grim Reaper does nothing. Grim Reaper 1 is scheduled to kill X at 9:00AM, Grim Reaper 2 at 8:30AM, Grim Reaper 3 at 8:15AM, and so on continuously being scheduled at half the minute hand of the previous Grim Reaper for an infinite number of Grim Reapers. If you were to pick any of the Grim Reapers, X would not be alive when it becomes the time at which that Grim Reaper is supposed to kill X. Meaning no Grim Reaper would kill X because there will always be a Grim Reaper scheduled to kill X before their time comes.
The modified version of the paradox:
There are still an infinite number of Grim Reapers, but this time instead of killing anyone, they are assigned to a year and are tasked to pass along a note to the next Grim Reaper. Grim Reaper 1 is assigned to 1 B.C. Grim Reaper 2 at 2 B.C. and so on. This is also assuming that the past is indeed infinite. Each Grim Reaper receives a piece of paper on the first day of every year from his predecessor and hands it to his successor on the last day of the year he is assigned. If the paper is blank when received, he will write the number of the year he assigned on the piece of paper and pass it on. If the paper already has a piece of paper on it, he will just pass it along without writing anything on it. The paradox is, there must be a number on the piece of paper by the time it reaches the year 1 A.D. But there is no number that can be on that paper because the past would be infinite and no Grim Reaper would ever get a note without a number and there would be no Grim Reaper that would write down their number.
This leads to the argument that:
1. If there could be an infinite regress of causes, then the scenarios provided above would be possible.
2. But these scenarios are impossible.
3. So, there could not be an infinite regress of causes.

1. Correct.
2. How to respond to Hume? Try this: "You're right." Or try this: "This is purely a matter of faith. Both are possible, and neither can be proven or disproved." Or try this: "Hume, you're wrong," and give no reasons why you think so.

The Grim Reaper paradox is interesting, but immaterial in responding to Hume's argument. That is so because the Grim Reaper paradox assumes too many hypothetical features, none of which are necessary to be hypothecised in reality. In other words, the Grim Reaper paradox creates a world which has no leg to stand on for believabilty; it has no connection to reality; it is a fantasy world, which has no connection to the world outside of its own.

Yup, we speak in different lexicons. It seems far too different to have any meaningful conversation. — javra

My advice and opinion: Take no notice of @Bartricks, or of his insults to you or to intelligence. Best is not to feed him. He has proven he is illogical, and can't be reasoned with.

Here's a fun thought:

A. The universe requires time for its existence
B. Existence requires time for its own existence
C. Time is eternity
D. Eternity is time

The universe might exist supernaturally, beyond any sense of causation (or time).

The universe might exist supernaturally, beyond any sense of causation (or time). — 3017amen

This is the other meaning of 'eternal', as timeless and causeless, with no definition/information being able to go into it.

Why the heck do we exist here on Earth?
What mysterious origin gave birth?
What purpose the madness amid the mirth?
Why the heck would a Person be the first?

The invisibility disorder spreads;
“Might be’s” and “maybe’s” clog the fora threads,
Naturally, from meaning’s search in heads,
Ever trying to raise ‘God’ from the dead.

God’s not an ‘answer’ but begs the question,
(fill in the rest?)

Yo PoeticU, where you been brother, ha !
I was actually thinking about you when I delved into the thought or premise of eternity.

Metaphysical theories,
have perplexed man throughout the ages
Its existence like a season,
Its purpose discovered turning pages

Some say God's the answer
Many question why
Patterns exist in the universe
Through time, by and by

Yo PoeticU, where you been brother, ha ! — 3017amen

I was/am a poem in stone in my parentheses as a tube-worm in the slab of timeless eternity, traversing from a fetus to a corpse through the 4D Block of God's Static Realm that simply is.

LOL, that's deep dude ha. Ok one more:

Fourth dimension is fine
5th dimension better
Truth is not static
But dynamic states through time

As you were.

But dynamic states through time — 3017amen

A changing 'God' changing/creating events in time, as a presentist 'God', is not at all preferred by deep believers over a timeless eternalist 'God'. But what the bleep do they know?

Hahaha. Yes, they/we need to get with the times.

When I said supernatural, I meant beyond the laws of nature. My Metaphysical theory relates to a Dipolar God. You know me, I do not like to dichotomize things lol. (Thanks Maslow!).

For example, a Dipolar God (see process theology Whitehead and Hartshorne) incorporates two contradictory concepts of a logically timeless, necessary Being, in a world of contingency/randomness/cause and effect. Kind of like how timeless mathematical truths demonstrate/describe our physically-dependent universe and existence.

"Dipolar theism, according to Charles Hartshorne, understands God as both absolute and relative, abstract and concrete, eternal and temporal, necessary and contingent, infinite and finite (DR). The being of God does not exclude but rather includes the being of the world" .

The being of God does not exclude but rather includes the being of the world" — 3017amen

We are 'God' stuff or 'God' thoughts!

In other news,

‘God’ changed His mind, so it would work better,
From err of His deluge wet and wetter,
Ne’er to kill again by water His kin,
Plus gave Redemption from Original Sin.

versus

‘God’ is unchanging, as ever Perfect,
Knowing and Being all with no defect,
As in all at once and everywhere,
His Self mirrored in us as a Reflect.

but either way or dipolar both,

Reflections of ‘God’ we would have to be,
As the very thoughts imagined in He—
Naught else could exist independently;
This One Effect runs continuously.

"This One Effect runs continuously. "


Conservation Energy- energy is neither created or destroyed:

By conservation of energy
Energy is not lost
Einstein's relativity
Extends infinity

Energy is not lost — 3017amen

I’m the All and the One, present-Omni,
For I’m eternal and can neither be
Created nor destroyed, having not a cause,
As the Ground of All—I am Energy.

…..NICE!!!!

Ok, our work is done here LOL

Ok, our work is done here — 3017amen

The fat lady didn't sing yet.

But really how it turned out…

Myth-Takes of Unconditional Love
And the freedom to be from the Above
And Goodness didn't fill human natura—
Our follies broadcast His soap opera.