== The Situation, the distribution of potentials and their affects.
… your only true God.
That is what it is in general, but “in the beginning”, the original cause must be somewhat of a self-cause, as in ‘‘by its own principles it can not not exist.’’
Well, I like that way of saying it. 
The confusion is with the notion that there was a “time” when absolutely nothing existed and then the universe began. That is an invalid thought. But in the chain of reasoning, there is a beginning wherein a fundamental principle brings about all else. That fundamental principle is what was called “God” by those above the masses in their understanding. The masses anthropomorphize, not the more educated.
I disagree that it is the only logical option, in fact I would suggest the only logical option is its antithesis.
Alahu akbar.
Aga Khan. 
the only true God if there indeed is one ontologically or it is necessary by etiology is reason and logic, anything higher than that is clearly beyond reason, beyond comprehension, ineffable, unreasonable, or unimportant, nay inconsequential, nay pointless. Pick an adjective it is clearly the sum of that.
Still ignorance is bliss, which is why so many chose to devolve responsibility to their imaginary friends. 
“I refuse to countenance that God has given us the faculty of reason only to forgo it’s use.”
Some guy.
“Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science.”
The same guy who was probably referring if indirectly to the intellectually lazy, the ignorant, the indolent, the obtuse, the maladroit aka those who need to worship ononism.
“Allah” merely means “the sum of all spirit” also known as “Elohim” == “everything happening” = “The Situation”.
Also known as “the Holy Spirit” (aka “the whole of all spirit/behavior” = “The Situation”)
יהוה it means God James, who has infinite names, one who is, most of whose names are ineffable, commonly pronounced adonai, yahweh or Elohim etc.
Regardless what it means is there is no God but God, Alahu akbar.
Most would.
But I think I arrived at the position that the fact that it exists is due to what it is through valid logic.
I could also simply say that it could only exist as what it is and not in any other way, but that would not clarify the finite regression of causality.
Tautology.
infinite regression arguments are ultimately self integrating, as well as being dogmatic, quo vadis?
Ontolgy of ontology of ontology ad nausem. Or to put it simply my logic is an axiom on which my logical conjecture is judged and found guilty.
Re examine the argument I made yesterday. It’s not tautological, it reduces the question to the most limited form.
At worst, the question of origin/causation itself is tautological and I exposed that fact.
Is it more logical today or something, does logic have a half life now?
The most simplest form of plutonium is hydrogen, I doubt though appealing to the half life of matter is going to win me any awards. Any more than reducing something to nothing is likely to make more sense given enough time. Something doesn’t become less meaningful over time. 
Existence exists because it exists. Profound it is not.
At best the question of origin itself is tautological and you exposed that axiom, philosophy! it’s like just that obvious. Teleos by tautology.
I didnt see you address the logic at all. I just figured you didnt know I was referring to what I said yesterday.
If you want to refute what I said you’ll have to actually know what I said and work with that.
Dude, I am just resolving the threads topic. It wasn’t me who put it forward in the first place.
I agree that it’s obvious, if you have a capacity for abstract thought and can see through terms to what the terms mean and when they mean it.
Thats not a common capacity at all, and in this thread some will interpret words as if “common english” was what was being spoken before the universe existed and by the absolute validity of which the universe was caused.
You said it exists because by its own principles it cannot not exist. If that is not a tautology what is it, it’s certainly logically paradoxical (so by the law of opposites which I just made up conveniently enough) does that make it objectively true?
Hence what I refer you to what I said in response to what you said, which you disagreed with. Hence this discussion which I can reliably be sure you also disagree with for the same initial reasons you disagreed with the original original, as I said ontology of ontology of ontology ad nauseum, I said that you can check. 
One thing we can be sure of though (ironically) is it whatever it is, is not caused by what it isn’t…
Read what came before it. What I wrote yesterday.
This can not turn into a logical discourse if you jump in in the middle.
Ill just pick it up here.
If it is eternal a cause is not irrelevant. It still needs a cause but an ongoing one.
Can you agree to this?
In other words, its cause is the only part of it which is eternally the same.
Which is a direct contradiction of your assertion that it exists because it cant not exist. Which leads me to conclude that it not existing is not an axiom or a starting point from which I can induce existence and vice a versa nor is it necessary to the eternal nor does it have to remain consistent or be included, integral or conducive to be so, nor is a position you postulated with the statement of logic or its inference contingent on that or anything else in that post as aforementioned. Existence is not a priori and its not not a priori or is it.
If it is eternal then a cause is relevant, if its not it’s not. Seems pretty airtight to me.
a cause of a cause caused by an infinite regression of causes leads to an infinite regression paradox then. If it’s not eternal it needs a cause so logically if it is eternal it does not need a cause, if it has a cause it’s eternal if it doesn’t it isn’t, you see where this goes…
Yep. Saying general things about science is him speaking out of his element in a Dawkins kind of way. The infinite regress stuff is him actually speaking about his own work that he’s done- most of his serious philosophical work has been on apologetics, the infinite, and time.
Depends on if you're willing to break your own rule and start talking about The Universe as a single thing, and not as a set of things. I thought we weren't doing that. If the universe is a set of things, then a bunch of those things causing each other in some sort of regress- finite or infinite. If you think an infinite one is acceptable, then ok. If not, you need an uncaused cause to get the ball rolling. Whether you call that uncaused cause a part of the universe, or external to the universe is just semantic, right?
Eternal only belongs to the higher existent state being light. Creation is in the materialized state and that is aging and dying, so it has been leaving from the moment it was created, it is not moving into creation it is leaving it.