I don't know what you're talking about.

You can come up with any number of cases in which there does 'not' seem to be causation. What's the point in that?

The ball and cushion case is a case in which the depression is being caused by the ball and we do not need to know whether the ball was ever not on the cushion in order to be able to conclude that the ball is causing the depression.

And I gave TWO examples. As you are clearly having trouble with the first one, question beggingly insisting that we have to know if the ball was ever not on the cushion before we can conclude that it is causing the depression, why not focus on the other example? Only one has to work.

Presumably you accept that not every event can be caused by a prior event, for then one would have to posit an actual infinity of prior events. So, all events must ultimately trace to causes that are not events, but things.

So, substances can cause events. But when do substances cause the events that they cause? Well, when the events occur. That is simultaneous causation. So, unless simultaneous causation makes sense, it seems event causation won't make sense either.

And if simultaneous causation makes sense, then there seems to be nothing incoherent about self-creation.

In the ball case that would seem to be the case, but not in the substance causation case.

Just read the OP until you understand.

Causation at the same time? What on Earth do you mean? Simultaneous? What events are simultaneous? What causes? You're drifting off... — Haglund

When a substance causes an event, the event and the causation occur at the same time. The event's being caused is its standing in a causal relation to the substance. And that causal relationship is instantiated at the time of the event.

There's no event at all. There's no 'event' of the ball causing the depression in the cushion. Yet there is causation.

That's because I have never come across "substance causation" before, it seems to be your idiosyncrasy, — Metaphysician Undercover

Er, no. You are clearly ignorant of the debate over causation and the debate over free will. Substance causation is a term of common use in philosophy. But you think that because you're ignorant of it, I must have made it up! Like most here, you think your own knowledge is exhaustive.

you haven't yet explained it in a coherent way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, I imagine you mean by 'coherent' 'a way I can understand'. That's not what coherent means.

Substance causation is causation by an object - a thing - rather than an event. So, not causation by a thing changing, but a change caused by a thing. It's not that the thing causes the event by undergoing some change - for a change is an event. The thing causes the event directly.

The first event or events are going to have been caused this way (some argue that all events are caused this way - that events are just manifestations of substance causation).

Many in the free will debate think that free will requires substance causation, where the substance in qusetion is ourselves (that's called 'agent causation'). And an apparent example of substance causation would be our own decisions, which we seem to make directly.

Anyway, it is coherent and importantly the causation involved seems simultaneous.

Do keep up, Gregory. I am arguing that simultaneous causation is coherent. And that's what Kant's ball example shows.

As you seem extremely confused about everything (yet blithely unaware of this), try and recognize that I am not saying that there is a ball and a cushion that have actually existed for eternity, one on the other. Note as well that I am not saying that all causation is simultaneous causation. I am arguing that simultaneous causation is coherent and that, as such, we have no basis for deeming self-creation incoherent.

In that case there is no cause for the depression, because there is no existence of the cushion with any other shape than that in which the ball fits. There is no evidence that the ball caused the depression - there is only your understanding of a ball and cushion as temporally related objects, which these are not. So you can’t apply that understanding here. — Possibility

That's flagrantly question begging.

Imagine you come across a ball on a cushion. Now, if asked what is causing the dent in the cushion, you're going to answer - correctly - that it is the ball. Yes? Of course, you're going to say no. So just imagine anyone else - anyone else is going to say the ball is causing the depression.

Now imagine the entire universe came into being 5 minutes ago, with everything arranged as it is. Well, it's still true that the depression is being caused by the ball.

Plus, I gave TWO examples, the second appealing to substance causation.

The problem is, you’re using actual objects and their interaction in time as a model for eternity. — Possibility

The problem is that you lot don't understand how thought experiments work!

This is an arbitrary assumption or, at best, a hypothesis, — Alkis Piskas

No, it is a thought experiment. And our reason is clear about it: the ball is causing the depression on the cushion even if the ball and cushion have always been in that arrangement. That's why Kant presented it and why so many afterwards appeal to it. It's why so many philosophers accept the possibility of simultaneous causation.

"the cushion envelops, enwraps the ball" as well. — Alkis Piskas

Relevance?

So, this is not a valid example. — Alkis Piskas

Validity is a property of arguments, not examples.

Do you have another one, where the effect precedes the cause or there's a simultaneous cause and effect? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I have given it numerous times. Substance causation is when a substance - an object - causes an event. It is simultaneous causation for the time of the causation is the time of the event. And substance causation has to be admitted to be coherent, for if one denies the possibility of substance causation then one will have to posit an actual infinity of past events.

Put it this way: if every cause has to precede its effect, then we're off on an infinite regress.

So there does not seem to be a way of denying the coherence of simultaneous causation and thus we have no basis for denying the coherence of self-creation.

(BTW, you are talking about the "causality principle", the reversibility of which has is still to be proved ...) — Alkis Piskas

What are you on about?

I'm talking about what I'm talking about. I am arguing that the only reason to think self-creation is incoherent is the assumption that causes must precede their effects. That assumption is false.

You clearly don't really understand what substance causation is.

Substance causation involves a substance - an object - causing an event. Not - not - by means of some other event. That's event causation. But directly.

You can put whatever label you like on the instantiation of that causal relationship - you can call it an 'act' or a teapot, it won't make a difference. The simple fact is that substance causation involves the instantiation of a causal relation between a substance and an event. And when does that occur? At the time of the event. Thus, substance causation 'is' simultaneous causation.

Once again: you are begging the question.

There is no empirical evidence that simultaneous causation is impossible. And it is its possibility that I am defending.

Now, stop begging the question and engage with the argument.

you have just taken as gospel the very thesis whose credibility is in question, namely that every cause precedes its effect.

Question begging

Like I say, read the OP and try and address something argued in it.

That makes no sense.

Come on - what's a possible world and how is one different from a toity world?

I'm a philosopher.

Now, what do you understand a possible world to be? And can you distinguish one from a toity world?

Then you are as lacking in humour as you are in insight. Substitute 'possible' for 'toity' and 'necessary' for 'hoity' and then see if that produces any mirth in you.

I have put it in my Haglund.

You don't seem to read what I say. I explained earlier that it is not.

If self creation is coherent, then there can be nothing and then something.

That isn't something from nothing. That's nothing and then something. The cause of teh something is not the nothing, but the something itself.

What are you talking about?

I don't believe in possible worlds. I believe in Toity worlds. Have you read Toity Worlds by Prof. Boule Sheet?

Prof. Sheet distinguishes between two kinds of truth: hoity truths and toity truths.

What's a toity truth? Well, a toity truth, Prof. Sheet tells us, is a truth that is true in at least one toity world.
What's a hoity truth? A hoity truth is a truth that is true in 'all' toity worlds.

What's a toity world? Well, it's just a device to make clearer what a toity truth is.

I really can't spoon feed you this stuff anymore. It's going all over your bib.

That's not an argument. — Gregory

Yes it is.

The first premise is wrong. Those are two different things. — Gregory

Read the OP.

Why might someone suppose self-creation to be impossible?

The only reason I have ever encountered is this one: it would require the created thing to exist prior to its own creation.

If simultaneous causation is coherent, then self-creation does 'not' require the created thing to exist prior to its own creation.

Thus, if simultaneous causation is coherent there is no reason to think self-creation incoherent.

That was all in the OP. The OP that you either didn't read or that you are incapable of understanding. So this is entirely pointless, is it not? You don't know what an argument is or how to argue or what implies what.

Simultaneous creation is not self creation. — Gregory

Onions aren't cows.

Shall we list some more things that aren't other things?

(Note, you're now going to want to ask questions about onions and cows, yes? Don't).

Simultaneous causation is coherent. If simultaneous causation is coherent, so too is self-creation.

1. If simultaneous causation is coherent, then self-creation is coherent
2. Simultaneous causation is coherent
3. Therefore self-creation is coherent

That's called an 'argument'.

Yes there is. Read it again. Keep reading it until you understand it. If that doesn't happen then I suggest you return to trying to force that square peg through the round hole - it'll go through eventually.

Read the OP.

It's called an 'example' or 'thought experiment'.

What, you think I think there is actually a canon ball on a cushion somewhere? Christ.

The thought experiment - Kant's, not mine - illustrates the coherence of simultaneous causation.

Now, baby steps - do try and follow the reasoning and stop thinking about the direction of time. If simultaneous causation is coherent - and Kant's thought experiment seems to show it is - then self-creation is coherent.

What does that mean? Does that mean the universe must exist eternally. Er, no. It means that the universe could have created itself. Now, if it did that, would it be existing eternally? No.

Sigh. If you think you can have an actual infinity of prior causes - an incoherent notion - then the universe could be eternal yet that would not amount to it being self-created.

if, on the other hand, there can't be an actual infinity of prior causes, then there would need to be some first causes that are not events. Objects, in other words.

If those objects exist uncreated, then they exist with 'aseity'. That's just what aseity means.

But an object that exists with aseity has not created itself. It hasn't been created at all.

Now, try and address something I argued.

That depends on the direction of time. Goes time forward? — Haglund

Jesus. No. It. Doesn't. This is pointless as you seem so determined to make this about time and not what it is actually about that we're not going to make any progress. You don't seem to understand the point.

You've described an eternal universe — Gregory

No I haven't. I pointed out that an eternal universe is not an example of something self-created. If there is an eternal universe then it would be an example of something existing with aseity, not an example of something that has created itself.

What's causing the dent? The ball. When is it causing it? All the time.

Confused gibberish.

An eternal universe would not be an example of self-creation, but of self-existence.

This thread is about self-creation: that is, something creating itself. If self-creation is coherent, then there could be nothing and then something due to the something creating itself.
It's not that something comes out of nothing. It's that there is nothing and then there is something and the cause of the something was the something itself.

It has nothing to do with time's direction. It has everything to do with simultaneous causation.

If simultaneous causation is coherent, then there is no reason to think that self-creation is incoherent.

Like I said, then time stands still. A ball eternally on a cushion is equivalent to time standing still. Nothing happening. — Haglund

You're not really getting this: the ball would be causing the dent. That's simultaneous causation. Just describing other features of the case in no way challenges that conclusion. You might as well start talking about cushions and how cushions are made of material and have some sort of stuffing. Yes, maybe, maybe not - this is not the place to clarify the concept of a cushion. THe point is that we have simultaneous causation in the scenario described. Thus, simultaneous causation seems coherent. Thus, self-creation seems coherent as the only reason to think it might not be was the dogma that a cause must precede its effect.

Some acts are not events, but cause events, like an act of will, it causes an event but is not itself an event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Substance causation is causation by a substance. When the substance is an agent it is called 'agent causation'. You are simply referring to agent causation when you maintain that an act of will is not an event but causes an event.

That's actually confused, incidentally. An 'act' of will would be the event, and it would be caused by the mind directly. That causation is not an event, but what it causes - the willing - is.

But anyway, as you clearly accept the coherence of substance causation, then you should also accept that there can be simultaneous causation, for that's what one has with substance causation. When a substance causes an event, the causation and the event are simultaneous. To maintain otherwise would be to have to posit some earlier 'event' that caused the later event - but then that's event causation, not substance causation.

It didn't 'get there'. It has always been on the cushion.

I gave another example too. Substances - things - can cause events. Anyone denying this is going to have to posit an actual infinity of past events to explain current events - yet reality contains no actual infinities.

So, things can cause events. But when? That is, when a substance causes an event, when does the causation occur? Well, at the same time as the event.

Simultaneous causation therefore seems coherent. In which case self-creation is coherent, or at least the main reason for thinking it incoherent has now been undercut.

That's not the example. In the example - Kant's example - the ball has always been on the cushion.

And I gave another example - substance causation.

No it doesn't. Again - look at the case I made!

I presented two examples of simultaneous causation. Those cases seem to demonstrate that causes do not have to precede their effects.

You're just ignoring the case i made and saying stuff.

Hey, you asked me if cause and effect can coexist. Yes they can. — Haglund

No I didn't. I asked you if causes must always precede their effects.

I had presented a case for thinking that they do not have to precede their effects. You need to address it.

I said conviction is our means of understanding — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know what you mean or why you're saying these things. This thread is about a particular issue, namely whether self-creation is coherent. It's not about wider issues in epistemology.

Causation is always an act. — Metaphysician Undercover

What? Nonsense.

Argue something. Don't pronounce.

Substance itself is passive — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Substance can cause events. If all events are caused by other events, you get an infinite regress of events. So, some events must be caused by non-events, that is by things. And that's called substance causation.

What's incoherent is your proposition that there was no time when the ball was not on the cushion. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're misusing the word 'incoherent'.
You clearly don't understand the example. The ball is always on the cushion. The ball is causing the depression in the cushion. Therefore, the causation is simultaneous.

perhaps, something like this can happen, something out of nothing. It makes no sense of course, — Manuel

Question begging. I provided examples of simultaneous causation. So, simultaneous causation makes sense.

And if simultaneous causation makes sense, then there seems no problem with the idea of something creating itself.