Well we can never know what an uncaused cause would look like because we have no example of it in our world. Whatever created our universe would have to be utterly unlike than anything in the universe.
Well, I'm not sure I accept the concept of an uncaused, cause. Doing so, would require that one remove
time, as a tangible variable from one's mind. Time, is forever entwined within every fabric of existence; every particle, every piece of matter, and energy. It's hard to imagine, if not entirely impossible, (Although I argue impossibilities do not exist) to
think of anything that does not include time, as an elemental, and fundamental part of that thought, or equation. However, if I were to go about trying to prove that an uncaused, cause is possible, I'd wager that it might be found in things that transcend time, and more to your point, and perhaps or my rebuttal, I'd submit that there may indeed be things
within this universe that in fact do transcend time. That's what I'd be looking for, if I were a serious student.
But that's really besides the point of what ashurbanipal and ITN were arguing.
As a bystander, my interpretation is similar to yours, however, I tried to cut through the minutia. ITN's logic is clearly circular, perhaps he thinks that circular reasoning, paradoxical as it is, is in fact proof of his
own pudding? I'm not convinced either.
I don't see the paradox in ashurbanipal's argument that ITN sees, but even if it exists, ashurbanipal's question is still germane: what named individuals would ITN classify as philosophers? If Aristotle and Pascal were on the list of philosophers not making arguments of philosophy, who then can be called a philosopher, besides ITN?
I don't accept ITN's reasoning, for the above named reasons, however, I have come to more precisely define philosopher myself, over time. In essence, a philosopher is anyone that can make an argument to describe something that is otherwise enigmatic to lay observers. Making sense of the senseless, to put it short. To ITN's credit, I don't think that necessarily requires outside sourcing to accomplish, but to his discredit, well regarded philosophers fall well within the definition I contend is more appropriate.. I would like, if anyone cares, a more precise definition of what one means by "outside-sourcing" as it is being used in this discussion.
I don't see their discussion proceeding any further until that point is answered. I don't really see them 'arguing past each other' the way you described. I see a salient question being avoided by ITN by vehicle of his insistence that all other aspects of ashurbanipal's argument are able to be dismissed until his 'fallacy' is cleared. I think it's pretty clear where ashurbanipal's line of questioning is going and, on appearance, ITN is avoiding it.
Best way to win an argument, (in one's own mind) is to dismiss the other argument, out of
mind.
But I suppose that's not surprising.
Well, I'm not passing judgement as to the character of either participant, doing so muddies the water, I've found. I try to take arguments for what they are trying to convey as best I can, and I ask for clarity if I find something confusing. I'm not so confused about this particular argument as much as I am intrigued.
Tim-
