Okay, oh ye posters here, please let you and me have a dialog on the proposition from me, everything with a beginning has a cause; then you can start with your counter proposition.
People have tried to have a dialogue with you, Pachomius.
On this very subject.
Sarkus included.
But, as is your style, as soon as you can't answer something (either through lack of comprehension or simply an inability to come up with a suitable answer) you cry foul and try to start the whole process again.
You play the victim yet it is you, solely you, who has been the cause of this thread not moving on since you posted your proposition initially.
From around page 22, and 38 of your posts later, all you have done is make the same assertion, provided one or two specific examples of it (which do not prove the principle universally), and then merely ignored everything that others have said by way of criticism of your position.
You don't like what one person says so you start all over again and look for someone else.
Don't ask what is the meaning of this sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause; if you do, then I submit you are not qualified to do dialog with rational and honest folks in a forum.
You once posted that you enjoy discussing philosophy.
Yet you seem oblivious to the importance of being accurate in meaning.
Maybe you like the woolliness that comes with being vague.
And don't keep saying that I don't get what you are trying to tell me.
I will say it as I see it.
But if you do get it then your insistence on ignoring it must mean you do so deliberately.
And that makes you intellectually dishonest.
Or at worst simply a troll.
If you can't understand the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause, then try to use a dictionary and get each word's meaning, then if you still don't get the communication in the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause, go to your local school grade school language teacher, and ask him or her to explain to you what is the meaning of that sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause.
And now you reconfirm your hypocritical side.
You have previously asked what other people mean with the words they use.
But now you try to ridicule anyone who would ask you the same?
Or there are folks here with the suspicion that I am laying semantic landmined traps here, with my invitation to dialog with me on the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause?
Given you demonstrable inability to comprehend, most are probably thinking you incapable of deliberately doing so.
Yet it is that lack of comprehension that also makes people wary that such mines exist whether you are aware of them or not.
One day, hopefully in the not too distant future, you may actually move on from your proposition and try to show how this relates to your concept of God.
And then, rather than merely highlighting the unsoundness of the conclusion due to your inability to prove the truth of the proposition, we can highlight all the other issues there will undoubtedly be with your argument.
So, please, do continue...