Quite a lot of words for someone who does not give a shit about this dude's arguments. Needless to say, I did not waste any time reading them. I win.

You are making no sense. X did come into existence. Perhaps you are conceptually confused (or worse), but if something does not exist at one time and does at a later time, then it came into existence. — Bartricks

The verb "to come" implies an extension in time, however small (infinitesimal dt). So coming into existence is meaningless if the event X at time t2 is considered. Unless X has an Y preceding it it can't come into existence because you can imagine it. I can imagine you disappearing from the stage. Going out of existence instantaneously. WTF doesn't that happen?

Quite a lot of words for someone who does not give a shit about this dude's arguments. — Bartricks

As I said: "I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about 'reason'". So I dealt with claims and arguments of yours I found more philosophically pertinent.

Needless to say, I did not waste any time reading them. I win. — Bartricks

Sure, sport, don't believe all those who tell you otherwise. Do you wanna a lollipop?

Can something cause its own existence? No.

Can something exist and there be no prior causal reason for why it should exist? Yes, and its logically necessary that this exist for at least one thing in the causal chain of existence.

It seems to me we have to see causality as linear although this is a habit of mind. Linear causality seems like a masculine, almost phallic, concept of power over potentiality. Notice how religious people talk of god as "he". But god creates himself in the scheme of theism so we all fall for the same paradoxes in our ponderings over origins. Perhaps there is something about the "absolute first" that always will allude us as long as we long for it. (Notice the strange fascination over Adam and Eve)

It seems to me we have to see causality as linear although this is a habit of mind. Linear causality seems like a masculine, almost phallic, concept of power over potentiality. — Gregory

Do you favor circular causality, feminine, almost, vaginac?

Unless X has an Y preceding it it can't come into existence because you can imagine it. — Hillary

Just obviously question begging. Read the op and address the argument.

Can something cause its own existence? No. — Philosophim

Oh, okay then. Brilliant. Don't bother addressing the argument in the OP. Just say stuff and it'll be true.

A living organism is sort of self generating. The creature you are now was created by an earlier version of you.

That's vaguely a definition of life.

Er, what?

OP. Read it. Address it.

Unless X has an Y preceding it it can't come into existence because you can imagine it.
— Hillary

Just obviously question begging. Read the op and address the argument. — Bartricks

Like I said, in the imagination everything can happen. Nothing....FLASH...something. Not so difficult. What point you want to make? X can appear where there was no X before. So?

OP. Read it. Address it. — Bartricks

Your OP has been addressed a 1000 times. What more is there to say? It can happen. As simple as that! Jesus!

Like I said, in the imagination everything can happen. Nothing....FLASH...something. Not so difficult. What point you want to make? X can appear where there was no X before. So? — Hillary

Relevance?

Read the OP. Try and understand the argument. You will fail. But if or when you succeed, try and address it.

Can something cause its own existence? No.
— Philosophim

Oh, okay then. Brilliant. Don't bother addressing the argument in the OP. Just say stuff and it'll be true. — Bartricks

Actually, fair. I did not read to the end, and that is my mistake. Simultaneous causation doesn't make any sense either. If you're going to say something exists for eternity, why bring more than one entity into it? There's still the question of why both entities have existed for eternity in the first place. The answer is the point I made earlier. Eventually something can be explained by the fact of its existence, but not by something prior to it. That is logically certain. There is an end in which there is no explanation prior up the causal chain, even if its existed infinitely. Why after all did that thing exist infinitely opposed to finitely? Because that's just what is.

Read the OP. Try and understand the argument. You will fail. But if or when you succeed, try and address it — Bartricks

Your argument is CORRECT! t1, nothing...t2, X. Now what?

What more is there to say? It can happen. — Hillary

So you agree with my conclusion in the OP? Good. That means you have nothing to say. So stop saying things.

Relevance? — Bartricks

I confirm what you state! Time 1, no X, time 2, X. Simultaneously causation. X causes and effects itself. But what's the relevance?

You now want me to give you reason to care? Something most think impossible has been demonstrated to be possible.
You don't care.
Ok. Fine. You clearly do not have an inquiring mind. That's fine. Go beat a panel or put up a shelf or breed or something.

Simultaneous causation doesn't make any sense either. — Philosophim

Question begging.

Something most think impossible has been demonstrated to be possible. — Bartricks

It happens continuously around you.

You've nothing to contribute, Hilary.

You've nothing to contribute, Hilary. — Bartricks

On the contrary! I have much to contribute! At t1 the baby is still a part of mamma. At t2 the baby is free. The baby has self caused freedom.

So set X=freedom. No X at t1, X at t2, X came into existence by self causation. A real-life example, so not about zebras appearing in my room.

Creation Loop

1. X can create Y

2. Y can create X

Step 1: X creates Y

Step 2: Y creates X

Loop through steps 1 and 2.

X, in a sense, creates itself; so does Y.

As for how it all begins, don't ask. Just make note of the fact that once the loop is initiated, it's self-sustaining.

Bartricks moronic philosopher.

Interesting concept. I am trying to find out an example inreal life (if it does exists) but I can't remember anyone.
Anyway, your example gives me nostalgia because gives me the memory of learning basic philosophy at school. I guess we studied a similar example as yours on Aristotle's act and potency: in the context of the physical explanation of movement and, more widely, the metaphysical explanation of becoming.

If, as some believe, math is an invention then...

Math $\to$ Physics $\to$ Chemistry $\to$ Biology $\to$ Mind $\to$ Math!

That's self-creation, oui?

Math creating itself in the mind!

Math creating itself in the mind! — Hillary

Bootstrapping?

It emerges in the mind and then pulls itself higher. The first pull? Where it comes from?

It emerges in the mind and then pulls itself higher. The first pull? Where it comes from? — Hillary

Good question!

Frankly, I dunno!

That said, in a universe that seems to hold tons of non-linear phenomena, I wonder why our minds are so into thinking in straight lines.