The "Supernatural": Burden of Proof?

[boatsnguitars]

Question:
Why should the burden of proof be placed on Supernaturalists (those who believe in the supernatural) to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural, rather than on Materialists to disprove it, as in "Materialists have to explain why the supernatural can't be the explanation"?

Argument:

Placing the burden of proof on Supernaturalists to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural is a logical and epistemologically sound approach. This perspective aligns with the principles of evidence-based reasoning, the scientific method, and critical thinking. Several key reasons support this stance.

Default Position of Skepticism: In debates about the supernatural, it is rational to start from a position of skepticism. This is in line with the philosophical principle of "nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it) and the scientific principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall on those making the extraordinary claim of the existence of the supernatural.

Presumption of Naturalism: Throughout the history of scientific inquiry, the default assumption has been naturalism. Naturalism posits that the universe and its phenomena can be explained by natural laws and processes without invoking supernatural entities or forces. This presumption is based on the consistent success of naturalistic explanations in understanding the world around us. After all, since both the Naturalist and Supernaturalist believe the Natural exists, we only need to establish the existence of the Supernatural (or, whatever someone decides to posit beyond the Natural.)

Absence of Empirical Evidence: The supernatural, by its very nature, is often described as beyond the realm of empirical observation and measurement. Claims related to the supernatural, such as deities, spirits, or paranormal phenomena, typically lack concrete, testable evidence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those advocating for the supernatural to provide compelling and verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Problem of Unfalsifiability: Many supernatural claims are unfalsifiable: they cannot be tested or disproven. This raises significant epistemological challenges. Demanding that Materialists disprove unfalsifiable supernatural claims places an unreasonable burden on them. Instead, it is more reasonable to require Supernaturalists to provide testable claims and evidence.

In conclusion, the burden of proof should rest on Supernaturalists to provide convincing and verifiable evidence for the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural. This approach respects the principles of skepticism, scientific inquiry, and parsimonious reasoning, ultimately fostering a more rational and evidence-based discussion of the supernatural in the context of understanding our world and its mysteries.

If they can't provide evidence of the supernatural, then there is no reason for Naturalists to take their claims seriously: Any of their claims that include the supernatural. That includes all religious claims that involve supernatural claims.

I challenge Supernaturalists to defend the single most important aspect at the core of their belief. We all know they can't (they would have by now), but the burden is on them, and it's high time they at least give an honest effort.

Please note: Arguments from Ignorance will be summarily dismissed.

[William]

I will accept for now, Tanagers claim that an Eternal Immaterial Entity Cause exists while showing that Tanager has not provided any evidence to support the claim that The Universe was created by said entity.
Note: Tanagers' EIEC (as described) is much the same as the Deist God. It thinks about a thing, makes a decision, and then creates the thing it has thought about and decided to make and allows that thing to self express as it wants to, without (or with limited) intervention.

Going along with Tanagers argument that the EIEC exists.

1.The EIEC created another eternal entity consisting of Mindfulness (immaterial) and Particles (Matter) and as such the entity consists of Mindful Matter. I shall call this the EEMM.

I think about it this way.

2. It is the EEMM which actually created The Universe.
(This takes care of the claim Tanager makes that it was the EIEC which created The Universe.)

3. The EEMM was able to create The Universe from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Mindful Matter.
This takes care of how the EEMM was able to mindfully create The Universe and where it got the particles to do so.

(This explanation does not explain how the EIEC created Eternal Mindful Matter outside of its own self and does not have to because one simply has to remove Tanagers EIEC as a necessary entity by accepting that the EEMM is the cause of The Universe and no other entity created the EEMM as it has always existed.)

I can therefore remove 1.

4. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

There has always been movement with the EEMM and opportunities to create spaces where time can be experienced. The Universe was thought about and was designed by the EEMM to achieve this, out of the mindful matter the EEMM consists of.

5. There is no reason to think that it is logical contradiction that The Universe needn't have been created by an immaterial timeless entity.

6. Therefore, there is no logical need for an immaterial entity having to first exist which never experienced time or material and thus had to create other immaterial entities (Minds) and material entities (The Universe) outside of itself.

Even that such a concept as Tanager argues from belief might not be a logical contradiction it has been shown in the above points, that the argument goes one step further than it logical needs to in order to explain that The Universe exists and had a beginning therefore The Universe can be said to have been caused (sure) but not necessarily by an "immaterial entity" unable to experience time (is "timeless" in another way other that being eternal.)

[alexxcJRO]

I don’t understand why you think it doesn’t work. I’m exactly saying that those past experiences limit the available choices, but still allows freedom within the constrained options. Analogically, the numbers I can tell you have been limited (or even broadened) by my genes, environment, and previous choices within that situation.

1.
So if my genes, environment, and previous choices limited my available choices in a certain moment X to only: evil action1, evil action2, evil actions 3.
Q: Should I be judged and punished? Am I really free to choose a good action in moment X?
2.
It clearly said:"Incompatibilists hold that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive and, consequently, that we act freely (i.e., with free will) only if determinism is false."

I clarified two senses of indeterminism that are pertinent to this discussion; that’s not changing what I said. If you don’t keep the context clear, your conclusions will not be rational.

My conclusions are rational using the logic of Free will-Incompatibilist-uncaused hypothesis.
You are the one contradicting the logic behind Free will philosophy: "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused".

If one is arguing for 100% certainty, I agree, but I’m not. I’m going for what is the best, most rational inference. Logically possible interpretations aren’t enough to knock the Kalam’s conclusion from being the best inference.

Nobody is talking about certainty.
Its about the fact that these subjects: Interpretation of Quantum mechanis, Theory of time, Free will are very heated, debated and complicated subjects with no conclusive real answer. There is no compelling arguments or compelling evidence convincing one to go one direction unless one has preconceived ideas about other subjects which force one so to speak in one direction.

I have no idea what your “omniverse” is. The cause, already argued for, is not temporal…not just parts wasn’t temporal, but the whole wasn’t temporal. So, if the omniverse is part temporal, then it has already been ruled out.

Our local universe->multiverse->... cacaverse...->omniverse.
Out local multiverse is temporal.
The omniverse has both temporal parts(our local universe) and some that are not.
The cause for our temporal universe lays in the parts that are not temporal.
Ultimately the omniverse has always been existing ergo beginningless, is uncaused and mindless.

Hence my confusion when you respond to an argument that says the cause must be an abstract object and the only abstract objects we know are like numbers or minds, with those like numbers having no causal powers.

Saying: "The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds" is just an empty assertion. Argument from ignorance.

We are talking about being rational. Your defense here is that maybe this omniverse goes against all logic we use to think about reality. It’s blind faith. Blind faith isn’t rational, especially faith that goes against logic, which extends to any thoughts we could have. You are even trying to use logic to argue that logic may not apply; it’s self-defeating.

1.
Q: Why can't an "eternal impersonal cause(mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness)" cause an temporal, not eternal effect?

2.

"Over the last decade, quantum physicists have been exploring the implications of a strange realization: In principle, both versions of the story can happen at once. That is, events can occur in an indefinite causal order, where both “A causes B” and “B causes A” are simultaneously true.

“It sounds outrageous,” admitted Časlav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna.

The possibility follows from the quantum phenomenon known as superposition, where particles maintain all possible realities simultaneously until the moment they’re measured. In labs in Austria, China, Australia and elsewhere, physicists observe indefinite causal order by putting a particle of light (called a photon) in a superposition of two states. They then subject one branch of the superposition to process A followed by process B, and subject the other branch to B followed by A. In this procedure, known as the quantum switch, A’s outcome influences what happens in B, and vice versa; the photon experiences both causal orders simultaneously."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20210311/

Why isn’t “I will benefit” a morally good reason? You are just arguing in a circle.

Nonsense.
A selfish evil reason is a not a morally good reason.
Words have meaning sir. We cannot say anything means anything.
If I rape someone for my own pleasure that is a not a morally good reason.
I cannot justify me raping someone for my own pleasure as a morally good action.

[boatsnguitars]

Okay, then: matter coming into existence where there was nothing. Matter has no material cause (i.e., isn’t created from anything else). Same kind of explanation that you just gave.

No (you don't apparently read any of my posts): Matter always existed.
See the difference?

However, are you going to then say that we both don't need to explain how Matter came from Nothing? Because I could say that, too. In fact, if we're both being honest, we'd say we have no idea and are just spending time on a forum to avoid doing the dishes.

I don't see any of this stuff you say created the matter,

It would be illogical to expect to see what created matter since the immaterial isn’t seen in that way.

How is it seen? In what way?

and I don't see anything that matter has created as outside explanatory power. For example Consciousness, concepts. Etc, all are explainable without inventing some new reality.

I don’t think that is explainable without inventing some new reality. I know materialists try and think they can explain it, but I think their explanations fail. If you want to try the explanation, I’ll engage with it.

I've explained. Matter always existed. The universe you see is what - basically, and at the subatomic level - has always existed. That's it. Full story. No need to create Frost Giants, Nephalim, pixies, or whatever else creative, Ape minds invented.

But thank you for admitting you've invented a new reality to explain your religious belief. I think that's important.

[The Tanager]

Okay.

1. You believe the EIEC is a mind - specifically The Mind which created particles and other EIE's.
2. You have no answer to how said EIEC created matter, or other minds but is is not something your beliefs need an answer for. You don't need to know how (thus explain how) because your beliefs allow for this.

Would you agree then, that you cannot explain how and regardless of your beliefs, (perhaps even because of them) the truth is you have no explanation because your beliefs mean you do not need to have an explanation?

No, one doesn’t need to know how (in the vague way you seem to be wanting more specifics as to some kind of mechanism or something) because LOGIC does not require explaining how a thing all works when asking the question of whether that thing exists.

1.The EIEC created another eternal entity consisting of Mindfulness (immaterial) and Particles (Matter) and as such the entity consists of Mindful Matter. I shall call this the EEMM.

I think about it this way.

2. It is the EEMM which actually created The Universe.
(This takes care of the claim Tanager makes that it was the EIEC which created The Universe.)

3. The EEMM was able to create The Universe from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Mindful Matter.
This takes care of how the EEMM was able to mindfully create The Universe and where it got the particles to do so.

(This explanation does not explain how the EIEC created Eternal Mindful Matter outside of its own self and does not have to because one simply has to remove Tanagers EIEC as a necessary entity by accepting that the EEMM is the cause of The Universe and no other entity created the EEMM as it has always existed.)

I can therefore remove 1.

If you remove 1, then you remove 2 and 3 which was built upon 1. You can’t do that. Or if you are saying the numbers aren’t connected that way, then you still have to explain how matter can have always existed against what science seems to tell us about the nature of matter being temporal and how temporal things cannot have always existed (because there can’t be an infinite regression of past moments if A-theory is true, which seems the most rational position).

[The Tanager]

1.
So if my genes, environment, and previous choices limited my available choices in a certain moment X to only: evil action1, evil action2, evil actions 3.
Q: Should I be judged and punished? Am I really free to choose a good action in moment X?

Your responsibility lay in your previous choices, so yes.

2.
It clearly said:"Incompatibilists hold that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive and, consequently, that we act freely (i.e., with free will) only if determinism is false."

I agree with what it said; I disagree with your misunderstanding of determinism. Determinism isn’t that there is some influence and limitation, but that our wills are completely limited by things external to our will.

My conclusions are rational using the logic of Free will-Incompatibilist-uncaused hypothesis.
You are the one contradicting the logic behind Free will philosophy: "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused".

If ‘indeterminism’ refers to “uncaused” then libertarian free will (my position) doesn’t posit “uncaused” because the free will is the ultimate cause. If ‘indeterminism’ simply refers to not determinism, then libertarian free will is this kind of ‘indeterministic’. You have to keep the different concepts clear.

Nobody is talking about certainty.
Its about the fact that these subjects: Interpretation of Quantum mechanis, Theory of time, Free will are very heated, debated and complicated subjects with no conclusive real answer. There is no compelling arguments or compelling evidence convincing one to go one direction unless one has preconceived ideas about other subjects which force one so to speak in one direction.

‘Compelling’ to me means 100% where one is forced/obliged to believe X because of the evidence and they couldn’t believe any other. If by ‘compelled’ you mean something like there being a best inference, a most rational inference, then while there is debate about these topics, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a best answer to those questions. If we aren’t after 100%, then those most rational answers should affect what we believe about other things instead of us trying to avoid a conclusion we don’t want simply by appealing to how there is disagreement on another subject that we don’t have a take on. Investigate those areas, come to the most rational conclusion and then see if it affects the conclusion you want to avoid.

Our local universe->multiverse->... cacaverse...->omniverse.
Out local multiverse is temporal.
The omniverse has both temporal parts(our local universe) and some that are not.
The cause for our temporal universe lays in the parts that are not temporal.
Ultimately the omniverse has always been existing ergo beginningless, is uncaused and mindless.

But what parts of the omniverse have been existing forever? The characteristics that I laid out in the argument (unless you can show one doesn’t follow). That includes it being personal. To call that the part of the omniverse instead of a term like ‘God’ is just a different name; it’s still the same concept (and a misleading one).

Saying: "The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds" is just an empty assertion. Argument from ignorance.

What other kind of abstract objects are there? I’m open to alternatives, but those are all that I’m aware of.

1.
Q: Why can't an "eternal impersonal cause(mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness)" cause an temporal, not eternal effect?

So, the third argument I gave? Okay, let’s focus in on that together. For a cause to produce an effect there are certain conditions that must be met for the effect to take place (like a freezing temperature to freeze water, for instance). If those conditions are met, then the effect will immediately take place.

If the impersonal cause is eternal, those conditions are present from eternity. The conditions being met means the effect will necessarily be there. The conditions being eternally present means the effect would also have to be eternally present since the effect immediately must take place. It’s not that the conditions weren’t there at t=0, then became present at t=1, but that the causal conditions were eternally there and so the effect must be eternally there.

A personal cause adds something extra into the conditions necessary for the effect: personal agency. The cause must decide to create the effect. Thus, while the cause is eternal, the effect isn’t because there is nothing forcing the cause to produce the conditions needed.

2.

"Over the last decade, quantum physicists have been exploring the implications of a strange realization: In principle, both versions of the story can happen at once. That is, events can occur in an indefinite causal order, where both “A causes B” and “B causes A” are simultaneously true.

“It sounds outrageous,” admitted Časlav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna.

The possibility follows from the quantum phenomenon known as superposition, where particles maintain all possible realities simultaneously until the moment they’re measured. In labs in Austria, China, Australia and elsewhere, physicists observe indefinite causal order by putting a particle of light (called a photon) in a superposition of two states. They then subject one branch of the superposition to process A followed by process B, and subject the other branch to B followed by A. In this procedure, known as the quantum switch, A’s outcome influences what happens in B, and vice versa; the photon experiences both causal orders simultaneously."

If you want to argue that this is a proper understanding, then please do so. This is one understanding among many competing theories among philosophers of the science.

Nonsense.
A selfish evil reason is a not a morally good reason.
Words have meaning sir. We cannot say anything means anything.
If I rape someone for my own pleasure that is a not a morally good reason.
I cannot justify me raping someone for my own pleasure as a morally good action.

You are clearly begging the question. Why is “I will benefit” not a morally good reason? Because it is a selfish evil reason. Those are synonyms: “not a morally good reason” and “evil reason”. Why is “I will benefit” an evil reason?

I completely agree with you that it is not morally good to rape someone for any reason. I don’t think that is objectively justified. But I think that is justified for different reasons than you because it involves God creating humanity for an objective purpose that includes moral agency and the equal worth of all humans. How do you justify it to someone who doesn’t agree with our conclusion?

[The Tanager]

Okay, then: matter coming into existence where there was nothing. Matter has no material cause (i.e., isn’t created from anything else). Same kind of explanation that you just gave.

No (you don't apparently read any of my posts): Matter always existed.
See the difference?

I could definitely be misunderstanding you, but perhaps you are misunderstanding my point. I’m not saying the content is the same; obviously you are saying matter always existed in your explanation and I’m saying it didn’t. I’m saying you simply explained your view and I did the same. I gave the sort of explanation (of different content) that you modeled. So, either that should suffice or you need to model a different kind of explanation of what you are expecting from my different content.

However, are you going to then say that we both don't need to explain how Matter came from Nothing? Because I could say that, too.

I agree that you wouldn’t need to explain how eternal matter organized into a new form to support your belief that matter is eternal. That isn’t my critique of that view; it would be an irrational critique to do that kind of thing. My critique revolves around how matter can’t be eternal.

How is it seen? In what way?

Through logical reasoning based off of other observations.

I've explained. Matter always existed. The universe you see is what - basically, and at the subatomic level - has always existed. That's it. Full story. No need to create Frost Giants, Nephalim, pixies, or whatever else creative, Ape minds invented.

And I’ve critiqued that. If you’ve nothing more to say in response to those critiques, then there is nothing more for me to say on that.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #344]

If you remove 1, then you remove 2 and 3 which was built upon 1.

Only in the explanation of your philosophy. This is explained in the points which you snipped from the explanation of my philosophy (which you asked for re moving the discussion forward).

You can’t do that.

Of course I can. There is no logical contradiction in doing so.

Or if you are saying the numbers aren’t connected that way,

Oh - you want the numbers connected in a better way? Sure!

1. It is the Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter which actually created The Universe bubble.

2. The EEMM was able to create The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Mindful Matter.

4. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

There has always been movement with the EEMM and opportunities to create spaces where time can be experienced. The Universe was thought about and was designed by the EEMM to achieve this, out of the mindful matter the EEMM consists of.

5. There is no reason to think that it is logical contradiction that The Universe needn't have been created by an immaterial timeless entity.
Therefore, there is no logical need for an immaterial entity having to first exist which never experienced time or material and thus had to create other immaterial entities (Minds) and material entities (The Universe) outside of itself.

Then you still have to explain how matter can have always existed against what science seems to tell us about the nature of matter being temporal and how temporal things cannot have always existed (because there can’t be an infinite regression of past moments if A-theory is true, which seems the most rational position).

Me. Does science tell us that matter is temporal?

GPT: Science does not necessarily assert that matter is temporal in the sense that it is inherently time-bound or fleeting. Rather, scientific understanding suggests that matter and the physical universe exist within the framework of time.

In classical physics, time is considered a fundamental dimension that is inseparable from space, forming a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Objects and events are described within this spacetime framework. In this view, matter persists through time, and the laws of physics are typically time-symmetric, meaning they don't inherently favor one direction of time over another.

However, when we delve into the realm of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, our understanding of time becomes more nuanced. In quantum mechanics, the concept of superposition allows particles to exist in multiple states simultaneously, and the exact nature of events can be uncertain until measured. In the theory of relativity, time is relative, and the perception of time can differ depending on the observer's motion and gravitational field.

In the context of these theories, some discussions arise about the nature of time and whether it is an emergent property or has a more fundamental status. While the nature of time is a topic of philosophical and theoretical physics discussions, the current scientific consensus doesn't propose that matter is inherently temporal in the sense of being inherently transient or temporary.

It appears that your belief that "science seems to tell us about the nature of matter" seems that way because it aligns with your belief in a timeless motionless immaterial creator mind which created The Universe.

As I showed, the points I present offer a better explanation without logical contradiction than your own does.

(because there can’t be an infinite regression of past moments if A-theory is true, which seems the most rational position).

Me: What is A-theory?

GPT: A-theory is a philosophical stance regarding the nature of time. It contrasts with B-theory, and together they make up two major positions in the philosophy of time. A-theory is also known as the "tensed theory of time."

In the A-theory of time:

Presentism: This is a specific version of A-theory that posits that only the present moment is real. The past and the future are considered as not having the same ontological status as the present. Past events have occurred, and future events have yet to occur, but only the present moment is real.

The Moving Spotlight Theory: Another version of A-theory suggests that there is an objective, moving spotlight of "now" that highlights a particular moment in time as real. The past and future exist, but only the present is illuminated by the spotlight of reality.

Growing Block Universe: This perspective holds that the past and present are real, but the future does not yet exist. As time progresses, the block of reality grows, encompassing what was once the future. This view allows for the reality of the past and present but denies the reality of the future.

A-theory stands in contrast to B-theory, also known as the "tenseless theory of time," which posits that all moments in time (past, present, and future) are equally real and that the passage of time is an illusion. In B-theory, time is often represented as a four-dimensional block where events are located at different points along the temporal dimension.

The debate between A-theory and B-theory involves complex philosophical and metaphysical considerations, and different theories of time have implications for our understanding of free will, causation, and the nature of existence. It's important to note that these are philosophical perspectives and do not necessarily correspond directly to scientific theories of time.

Which of those A Theories are you proposing eliminates the idea of the existence of a EEMM Tanager?
They appear to be directly related to The Universe and our place within it, rather than The Universe and an EEMM. (Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter.)

Are you perhaps thinking that the totality of the EEMM is within the bubble of The Universe. If so, then no. The Universe is one bubble from the infinite field which represents the EEMM, and while it is understood to have had a beginning, it is not known that it will end.

[boatsnguitars]

I think the key problem you have is that "making something from nothing." No?

I’m not sure what you are asking here. Are you saying I see a problem with it and that’s why I hold my belief? Are you saying my belief that one can make something from nothing is the problem? Something else?

I'm saying you have made a claim, and without evidence that this can happen, it seems you'd be wrong to believe it until you have evidence of it.

I'm saying I don't believe something can come from nothing - if you expect me to believe you, provide evidence. It's no different than what I'd ask from a person who believes in Allah, or ESP, or any other supernatural thing.

[alexxcJRO]

Your responsibility lay in your previous choices, so yes.

Q: But what if my previous choices are plagued by the same problems as moment X?

I agree with what it said; I disagree with your misunderstanding of determinism. Determinism isn’t that there is some influence and limitation, but that our wills are completely limited by things external to our will.
If ‘indeterminism’ refers to “uncaused” then libertarian free will (my position) doesn’t posit “uncaused” because the free will is the ultimate cause. If ‘indeterminism’ simply refers to not determinism, then libertarian free will is this kind of ‘indeterministic’. You have to keep the different concepts clear.

I don't care what your hypothesis is.
We were talking of what I used-> hypothesis X: Free will-Incompatibilism-uncaused.
Sir it clearly says: "One question that divides them concerns which type of indeterminism—uncaused events, non-deterministically caused events, or agent caused events—is required"
You said: "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused" while talking of my argument which used hypothesis X. Ergo you were talking nonsense.

‘Compelling’ to me means 100% where one is forced/obliged to believe X because of the evidence and they couldn’t believe any other. If by ‘compelled’ you mean something like there being a best inference, a most rational inference, then while there is debate about these topics, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a best answer to those questions. If we aren’t after 100%, then those most rational answers should affect what we believe about other things instead of us trying to avoid a conclusion we don’t want simply by appealing to how there is disagreement on another subject that we don’t have a take on. Investigate those areas, come to the most rational conclusion and then see if it affects the conclusion you want to avoid.

Q: Compelling means 100%?
Religion has really broken people minds.

In this debates I hear the most idiotic things ever.
Compelling means overwhelming.
When we have compelling evidence it means we have overwhelmingly convincing kind of evidence.
There is no such thing in these subjects: Interpretation of Quantum mechanis, Theory of time, Free will. That is why they were, are and will be very heated, debated for the longest time.

But what parts of the omniverse have been existing forever? The characteristics that I laid out in the argument (unless you can show one doesn’t follow). That includes it being personal. To call that the part of the omniverse instead of a term like ‘God’ is just a different name; it’s still the same concept (and a misleading one).

We could have omniverse or omnibeing.
Saying therefore omnibeing where it could be omniverse is wrong.
Therefore nothing.
Plus we have a history of failed "therefore omnibeing". Like I showed before.

What other kind of abstract objects are there? I’m open to alternatives, but those are all that I’m aware of.

Dont straw man please.
I said clearly that this :"The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects" is the assertion and not "The only abstract objects are numbers and mind".
There could be that there are out there things that are not part of our 4-dimensional manifold and are not abstract objects but material objects components of the omniverse where our 4-dimensional manifold lies.
Positing false dichotomies only reveals a lack of imagination and a bad argument from ignorance.

So, the third argument I gave? Okay, let’s focus in on that together. For a cause to produce an effect there are certain conditions that must be met for the effect to take place (like a freezing temperature to freeze water, for instance). If those conditions are met, then the effect will immediately take place.
If the impersonal cause is eternal, those conditions are present from eternity. The conditions being met means the effect will necessarily be there. The conditions being eternally present means the effect would also have to be eternally present since the effect immediately must take place. It’s not that the conditions weren’t there at t=0, then became present at t=1, but that the causal conditions were eternally there and so the effect must be eternally there.
A personal cause adds something extra into the conditions necessary for the effect: personal agency. The cause must decide to create the effect. Thus, while the cause is eternal, the effect isn’t because there is nothing forcing the cause to produce the conditions needed.

Q: If the eternal omnibeing can cause a temporal and not a eternal effect though indeterminate process: free will why can't a eternal omniverse can't cause a temporal and not a eternal effect through some indeterminate mindless process?

A personal cause adds something extra into the conditions necessary for the effect: personal agency. The cause must decide to create the effect. Thus, while the cause is eternal, the effect isn’t because there is nothing forcing the cause to produce the conditions needed.
If you want to argue that this is a proper understanding, then please do so. This is one understanding among many competing theories among philosophers of the science.

Claiming to know what we can't know.
Some humility is needed.
Our ignorance could be great. What we think is only posible and our capabilities to understand could be pretty smaller in scope.

You are clearly begging the question. Why is “I will benefit” not a morally good reason? Because it is a selfish evil reason. Those are synonyms: “not a morally good reason” and “evil reason”. Why is “I will benefit” an evil reason?
I completely agree with you that it is not morally good to rape someone for any reason. I don’t think that is objectively justified. But I think that is justified for different reasons than you because it involves God creating humanity for an objective purpose that includes moral agency and the equal worth of all humans. How do you justify it to someone who doesn’t agree with our conclusion?

1.
Things done where good is greatly outpaced by the evil cannot be done for a morally good reason. Cannot be morally justified as good moral actions. Unnecessary, unjustified Evil.
Small amount of pleasure(small good) experienced by the psychopath(CJNG member) is greatly outpaced by the evil(torture + rape + death) experienced by the non-moral agent which is completely innocent.

Things done where good greatly outpacing the evil can be said were done for a morally good reason. Can be morally justified as good moral actions. Necessary, justified Evil.
Saving +6.000.000 Jews(including countless non-moral agents) from torture, great suffering and death greatly outpacing the evil(killing Hitler when baby painlessly or prevent his existence).


2.
We are talking of psychopathy here not normal individuals.
Free will objection does not work for
-psychopathy->harm, suffering to non-moral agents.
-genetic diseases->harm, suffering to non-moral agents
for
Psychopathy and genetic diseases are things that results from the way our universe work.
They are gratuitous evils-natural evils. They cannot be justified.
We can easily imagine a universe where such things do not exist and the world would not be a worse world but by the contrary a better world. Where the universe does not include the above feaatures: psychopathy and genetic diseases.
They are not necessary to exist to achieve a specific moral good. They are completely unnecessary.

Please don't avoid point 2.

[The Tanager]

Only in the explanation of your philosophy. This is explained in the points which you snipped from the explanation of my philosophy (which you asked for re moving the discussion forward).

Not because of my worldview, but because of logic. Either you are saying 1 leads to 2 which leads to 3 or you are not. If you are saying that, then removing 1 removes the support for what follows. If you are not saying that, then there isn’t that logical problem (as I already said) and (as I’ve already said) I don’t think your view has a logical contradiction (barring if you are saying the above).

Our departure still seems to lay in whether matter is inherently temporal or not. We can have that discussion if you want, but sharing summaries from GPT isn’t enough for that. I think all 3 versions of A-theory eliminate the existence of the ultimate cause being material if matter exists within a temporal framework.