Except that which causes causation cannot be caused. “Self-caused” is an oxymoron.
What is impossible is what causes what is possible.
Imbalanced potential causes change and imbalanced potential is eternal because balanced potential is impossible.
Yea… apart from the fact that it happens everyday…
Guess who caused my decision to order Thai food? You’ll never guess… it was me!
Well, apart from when it’s clearly and easily possible, sure.
Incoherent.
In this case “self caused” would mean “caused by a part of itself”.
The cause must be the part before which no other part exists.
The first instance of this universe is its cause, and if the universe is all that exists this cause is part of it.
Von, I finally realize that when you say “incoherent” you mean “not common english”. I will find it much easier to interpret you from now on.
James that is a horrible position to take, you are reaching against logic there.
Or it can be eternal, in which case a cause is irrelevant.
Caused therefore requires “reason”.
Reason implies to think/ponder.
Reasoning, think, ponder and give the reason its purpose.
You look at creation, you see the moon and it is round or a circle. You question if the Earth is flat or a circle and therefore you develop the reason by applying a method. That method was to observe, document the passing of light into darkness. Therefore the human gave purpose to a system of time. They implied this purpose to the total of creation, yet the purpose is only observed from Earth.
Atmosphere = mass, mass is a theory of strings = sound, sound mass produces an evolved state = the self perpetuating instant = the immaculate.
Sound therefore via mass causes the immaculate to produce.
The immaculate = life continuation as the Holy State of observation.
Observer = astronomer, astronomer observes through the atmospheric sound and gains his own insight through atmospheric sound and therefore believes in his own observations made through atmospheric sound. Atmospheric sound therefore causes false witnessing because the Earth Life is the only Holy Life. Trying to imply the holy life to the cosmos was the greatest error that a human Philosopher ever undertook.
Helandhigh - in both cases, self-caused and uncaused, it must be eternal. Time is after all also part of it.
What’s certainly caused is its structure. The cause of this is implicit in its nature, what it is.
What I’m saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.
That is highly counterintuitive, but the only logical option.
== 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…