Tanager, I see that you are now insisting that your argument (the three-premise one) demonstrates an absolute beginning rather than merely proposing it as a possibility. However, you still have not justified why the premises of your argument should be accepted.
If your argument truly proves that space-time had an absolute beginning, then each premise must be defended, not just asserted. If one premise is flawed, then the conclusion does not follow. So let’s break it down.
You claim that my framework must defeat your argument in order to be valid. But you still haven’t addressed my core challenge: why should your premises be accepted in the first place?
I am not merely rejecting your conclusion—I am challenging the assumptions that lead to it.
Your three-premise argument assumes that an absolute beginning is the necessary result, but that assumption is built on your framing of space-time as a distinct creation rather than a transformation within an eternal framework.
That is precisely the assumption I have been challenging from the start.
You claim that there is a "conceptual distinction" between the spatio-temporal and the non-spatio-temporal, but this distinction is assumed rather than justified.
In my model, time and space do not constitute a fundamental divide—they are simply the way in which particular observed transformations are designed. The AAU does not require a separation between "spatio-temporal" and "non-spatio-temporal" realities because all transformations occur within the eternal framework of existence.
This means that your attempt to treat space-time as a distinctly caused entity is based on an assumed separation that has not been demonstrated. You need to justify:
Why space-time must be treated as a separate category rather than an emergent feature of transformation.
Why your framework is preferable to mine rather than simply possible.
What specific evidence supports the claim that an absolute beginning is necessary.
Until you justify these assumptions, your argument remains an assertion rather than a proof.
Your Premises Are Structured to Force Your Conclusion
You claim that an absolute beginning is not a premise but a conclusion.
This is misleading—your premises are designed to force this conclusion rather than prove it.
If your premises assume that an infinite regress is impossible or that transformations cannot be eternal, then you are embedding your conclusion rather than demonstrating it.
If your argument truly demonstrates an absolute beginning, then justify why your premises should be accepted over my framework.
Your Magician Analogy Fails to Address the Key Issue
You claim that your analogy of the magician bringing magic into existence is valid, but you still have not answered a key question:
I accept that your analogy accurately reflects your own view:
(a) Your view: A magician brings magic into existence without transforming it from something else.
However, your attempt to categorize my view as:
(b) A magician brings magic into existence by transforming it from something else,
is misrepresentative of my position.
The AAU model does not require a magician or magic at all. It describes a perfectly natural, material, conscientious and continuous process—one that involves transformations within an eternal framework, not the creation of something from nothing by magical means from an immaterial cause.
Your analogy still assumes a "causer" (the magician) and a "caused effect" (the magic), when my model rejects this framing entirely. There is no external entity conjuring anything into existence—there is simply an eternal, self-existent process of transformation.
Thus, your analogy is fundamentally flawed because:
It forces a creator-creation model where none exists in my framework.
It assumes that existence must be “produced” rather than eternally transforming.
It frames transformation as a supernatural effect when my model only describes natural continuity.
If you are going to compare my view to something, then the analogy must be more accurate.
My model requires no external magician and no magical conjuring—just the eternal process of material transformation.
There is no external magician conjuring anything into existence—only an eternal, self-existent reality undergoing localised transformations. Your analogy poorly attempts to impose a creator-creation framework where none exists in my model.
You say space-time came from "something"—but what is that something?
If the answer is a non-material cause, then you are assuming your conclusion before proving it.
If the answer is unknown, then you are admitting that your framework is incomplete and cannot claim superiority over mine.
Your Argument Is Designed to Lead to P4 (A Non-Material Cause)
You admit that P4 (the claim that the cause is non-material) comes later.
However, your entire framework is constructed to lead to P4, meaning your argument is not neutral—it is crafted to produce a specific metaphysical conclusion.
You present your argument as though it is an unbiased philosophical proof, but in reality, it is built to ensure a predetermined outcome.
Before Moving Forward, You Must Justify the Following:
Why should your premises be accepted rather than assumed?
Why should space-time be treated as a distinctly caused entity rather than an emergent transformation?
If space-time came from “something,” what is that something, and how does it function?
Until you address these foundational questions, your claim that I have not engaged with your argument is false. If your premises are flawed or unjustified, then your conclusion does not follow. Prove your premises—don’t just assert them.
Examining the Three Premises Truthfully
I have fully engaged with the three premises of your argument, and here is what I found:
P1: (Everything that begins to exist has a cause) is flawed because while causality observed applies within space-time it cannot be assumed to apply to the totality of reality itself. My model already accounts for causality within an eternal transformative framework, meaning P1 does not justify an absolute beginning.
P2: (The universe began to exist) is flawed because it assumes an absolute beginning where there is none. My model already explains the observable universe as a transformation within an eternal framework (AAU), which means "absolute beginnings" are only an illusion of perspective implied through presumption.
P3: (Therefore, the universe has a cause) is invalid because it relies on two flawed premises and assumes an external cause where an internal, material, transformative cause is already sufficient.
Since your entire argument rests on these assumed premises, and I have now demonstrated why they are flawed or unnecessary, your conclusion does not follow.
The Premises Must Be Stated Truthfully
I think the truthful premises must read as follows:
P1: Everything that is presumed to have begun to exist has a presumed cause.
P2: The observable universe is presumed to have begun to exist.
P3: Therefore, the observable universe has a presumed cause.
These clarifications matter because they reflect that the premises are based on presumption, not absolute certainty.
Even if we accept these premises, (either the KCA ones or these ones) they do not lead to P4—the claim that this cause must be external, non-material, or separate from the AAU.
P4 (the necessity of a non-material cause) is not justified by mere presumption—it would need to be aligned with practical logical observations we can glean from the observable universe.
If you believe your presumptive premises still hold, then prove why they should be accepted over my framework. Simply restating them is not an argument. If you cannot justify these assumptions, then your entire claim of an absolute beginning collapses.
Possibility is not proof. If your argument is truly sound, demonstrate why these presumed premises are necessary—don’t just assert them.
Even if we accept these premises, (either the KCA ones or these ones) they do not lead to P4—the claim that this cause must be external, non-material, or separate from the AAU.
