If the world is eternal, each member previous to another is the first cause and it is time that holds all these first not-first members together

If time runs backwards there is still linear causation, just no linear time

But that can't exist like a ball on a pillow that has no time. If time is eternal the series can exist by the fact it moves while existing. What you propose is a theory of time which wasn't given much detail in you OP

Creating oneself is the same as something from nothing.

All your first premises are wrong.

More sophistry. The mechanics of simultaneous causality is not related to how you defined self creation

That's not an argument. The first premise is wrong. Those are two different things. Suppose we have minute one with the ball on the cushion. It continuously presses the cushion till minute 2. But there is no answer yet as to creation! The issue of creation is not answered yet. All you have is a local cause

Simultaneous creation is not self creation.

There is no argument in the OP

Your way of constructing self creation makes no sense because you don't have eternal time. How can something create itself before it exists. Any way of constructing this amounts to a need for eternity

An eternal series does not have aseity because nothing is first to cause the effect. Everything is an effect

Kant was probably influenced by Descartes remarks about analytic vs synthetic thinking. Descartes thought there were different kinds of mental operations. Kant thought the bachelor example was analytic and math synthetic.

If there is a difference between acts that are creatively intelligent and ones that aren't there is difficulty in saying which is which for practical purposes.

You've described an eternal universe, although not necessarily just that. When Aristotle argued against an eternal universe unless there was a God and when he argued there cannot be an infinite hierarchy of gods, he was missing the point about self-creation. The eternal universe is "from nothing" because all that supports it is previous causes from the (eternal) past

When children learn mathematics they learn a synthetic skill, not an analytic one. Sure they start out counting the numbers but even this is not analytic forr them since ultimately they are to develope a synthetic skill (as Kant pointed out). Synthetic ability is dum da dum creative intelligence! We use this in many areas of our lives as we go outwards to knowledge and combine ideas to create ideas greater than the sum of their parts. This thread is an example of the creative mentality while analytic thought is usually defined as finding meanings to language instead of combining words to form a new synthesis

An example of self creation would be an eternal universe. This caused by that caused by that, going backwards like a god dependent on a god dependent on a god dependent dependent on a god ect. It's elephants and turtles all the way down as the parable goes but it is the process as a whole that holds it together, the reality of reality. So that is self creation

The difference between analytical and synthetic is that there is no new knowledge produced in the former. Of course if someone didn't know the language well they could learn a new word. But 2 plus 2 is four and there is a process there which is more than finding new words. So there are linguistic skills learned analytically and processes learn synthetically, both being different in *how* humans learn them. Physics is about taking two phenomena of say motion and uniting them to find something that is greater than the sum of each (a law). That's far different from learning definitions and absorbing synonyms. So I think Quine is wrong

There is no one historical viewpoint. Which is to say there is no certainty about levels of probability for events that happened many years ago. A theist's history is different from an atheist's history because of their philosophies

Addition (to whom it may concern):

When I ask myself "why am I here" I think of the good parts of my life and that becomes a goal to sustain wherein being happy amounts to thinking rightly. Is not the act of thinking itself supposed to be and is better done united to enjoyment? A goal oriented mind is a smart mind that doesn't wander. You know when you say something wrong in a conversation, things get awkward. All these things I see as intelligence and there seems to be agreement that intelligence is more than just logic.

1) we are all human
2) we all have the same survival needs
3) we have intelligence to survive
4) to survive you must have hope

So to have hope is smart, it is the psychology of survival which is linked to intelligence

Everything is chemical in biology. When you meditate to happiness you use chemicals as when you take shrooms or salvia. But with naturally finding happiness it goes from a chemical thought to a chemical thought. The initial thought it not "I am eating shrooms" but something greater. I don't think you can shoom your way to happiness. Now plants do give us chemicals but choices are free. Are you saying that some people are never given a chance for happiness or enlightenment or that it takes a lifetime to find? I would agree with the latter

Why would anyone not choose happiness if it's an option? It's good for oneself and available with effort. I'm proposing that will is what makes men intelligent primarily and the abstract stuff, if disconnected, is not of much use. So use is what is important. But what other goal can a person have than happiness for all incarnations of humanity? Are you saying with Kant that actions with motives are flawed? The end result would be happiness though

Now IQ skills may be slightly different subjectively than other skills even though they would fall under the field of intelligence. I wonder what evolutionary biology says about mental skills and how they change and evolve

I agree! Consider musicians like the Beatles that make creative music and play them themselves (which takes more than coordination). The result is clearly intellectual and has nothing to do with IQ skills. An Olympic skier uses more than coordination to do his feat. He uses mind

Being rich causes more problems than it solves, as even Sean Hannity admitted. The richs' dilemma is that they are tempted to be greedy by the very thing that makes them unhappy

The rich will always cause inflation because it is how their psychology works. One equal state of ownership couldn't happen because there are too many who want to be rich

Peterson has debated Zizek on capitalism. They are both extreme in many ways imo

I didn't say you were a Muslim apologist

The OT has brutal punishments and says slaves are property. So it's right to call it chattel slavery. The South had their arguments about why slavery was ok and it was largely based on the Bible

You lied about the Muslim thing and are dishonest in general

The Bible supports slavery and supports slavery as property ownership

You admit slavery was part of the law but say it was benign. Why should I trust you when the Bible supports cutting wives hands off and setting people on fire?

Defend satanic religions all you want, it's a fact that the Bible calls slavery "property". Lev 21 and 25 speak of perpetual slavery and Num. says to enslave the children of enemies you killed

I agree. Deut. 25:12 was the verse I mentioned

Slavery was the same then as now. Slavery in the South had its apologists too.. Christians say a higher law is now in place but it should have always been in place. And why didn't OT wives have equal rights of as the husband's? You sound like a Muslim apologist

Leviticus 25:46 "make them slaves for life"

The old Testament reports a "father" who treats his old Testament children different than the New people. In the OT he had husbands cutting off their wives' hands and being ordered not to feel compassion. Just saying

Christians follow the new covenant as if it was ok it was not always in place

Donald Hoffman, mentioned earlier, can't say evolution happened then say it shows everything is an illusion because evolution is then an illusion. I wish he would admit his position uses evolution to disprove evolution because the interface theory of knowledge is really ugly

I didn't realize this thread was 3 pages

To be is to feel yourself embodied

Reality is reality. I've done most psychedelics. It's brain function