Creation usually implies an object contained by time being caused to come into existence: The object is nonexistent at an earlier time, and then something happens that causes the existence of it, for a while at least. The depression on the cushion doesn't meet the definition. It may be caused by the ball, but if it was always there, it was never created.
As another example, the universe (by most definitions anyway) probably isn't an object contained by time, but rather is something that contains time. So it seems a category error to suggest it is a created thing.

Physics does allow temporal loops and backwards causation. They're valid solutions to the equations, so in theory, something could create itself, but there's the loop then. In a loop, while the arrow of time might be defined, all moments are both before and after other moments, so it is unclear what comes before what else.
As for backwards causation, that's one of the interpretations of experiments like the quantum eraser setups, some of which have been interpreted as having caused effects arbitrarily far (years) into the past. But while effects might occur in the past, information cannot be thus passed, and usually the creation of a thing involves information transfer.

The depression in the cushion is being caused by the ball on the cushion even if both call and cushion have been in that arrangement for eternity. Thus in this case we have simultaneous causation. The depression is being caused by the ball, but there was no time when the ball came to be on the cushion. — Bartricks

One of the problems involved in assuming infinite time. When two things are assumed to co-exist, forever, it makes the existence of each of them unintelligible. Resolution: reject as incoherent, the idea of infinite time.

There's no assumption of infinite time. When there was no time, the ball was on the cushion, causing the dent.

Note, if you think that all cause must precede their effects, then you would have to assume infinite time or else admit that there can be effects that are not themselves caused by a prior event. But if you admit - and I think we all should - that there can be causation by objects rather than events, then you should also admit that there can be simultaneous causation. For the event that the object causes would occur at the same time as the object causes it.

Thermodynamic time must have a beginning. If not, we would observe chaos only since entropy increases. In nature, all processes are irreversible. Only around time zero cause and effect didn't exist. Which doesn't mean time didn't exist. It did, but not in its thermodynamic, flying-arrow-like shape. There was an implicit time to set things in thermodynamic motion. But what determined when that happened? A previous universe seems to do the trick.

So, was there a first cause? Yes, but it was no internal cause. The internal cause was not a thermodynamic cause, but it needed an external TD cause to set the TD cause and effect in motion. In other words, the non-causal temporal cause, needs an external TD cause to set things in TD motion at (or close to) time zero.

the brain gave itself a name. that cant happen without an initial cue to a name

When there was no time, the ball was on the cushion, causing the dent. — Bartricks

That's an incoherent sentence. The ball and cushion are observed to be in a situation now. In the time before now, the ball and cushion are presumed to have been in the same situation. You are proposing that before that, there was "no time", and the ball and cushion were in the same situation. So you are proposing that there was a change from "no time" to "time", and the ball and cushion were unaffected by this change. But that's impossible because the ball and cushion are known to be temporal objects.

Note, if you think that all cause must precede their effects, then you would have to assume infinite time or else admit that there can be effects that are not themselves caused by a prior event. But if you admit - and I think we all should - that there can be causation by objects rather than events, then you should also admit that there can be simultaneous causation. For the event that the object causes would occur at the same time as the object causes it. — Bartricks

The idea that there is an event which an object causes, which is co-existent with the object it itself, is incomplete, and does not account for the existence of the object nor the existence of the event. You want to say that one is the "cause" of the other, but you can only make such a choice arbitrarily, because you've stipulated that they co-exist and one is not prior to the other. This would render "cause" as completely meaningless, because you could arbitrarily assign it to one or the other.

There is what I see as a much more intelligible, and reasonable way of dealing with this problem, the one employed by classical metaphysics, and theology. We say that the conception of "time" which makes time dependent on, and following from, the movement, and existence of physical objects is a faulty conception. Instead, we conceive of the passing of time as necessary for, therefore prior to, the movement and existence of physical objects. Then we have the necessary premise to conceive of time passing when there was no physical objects. We propose a non-physical cause (God) operating at this time, which causes the existence of physical objects and their motions.

Ask anyone that believes in evolution, they already think life itself is self-created. Though they do not realize it, their entire idea is that life is just waiting around in some non-dimension...random formations of matter were the catalyst, voila...that's literally what scientists believe (can't make this stuff up).

That's an incoherent sentence. The ball and cushion are observed to be in a situation now. In the time before now, the ball and cushion are presumed to have been in the same situation. You are proposing that before that, there was "no time", and the ball and cushion were in the same situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're changing the subject. I am taking no stand on whether time began or not - not for the purposes of this debate. I am pointing out that it is irrelevant. For whether time began or not, there was no time when the ball was not on the cushion.

The idea that there is an event which an object causes, which is co-existent with the object it itself, is incomplete, and does not account for the existence of the object nor the existence of the event. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't follow you. Substances can cause things. If one denies this, then one will be off on an infinite regress.

Now, 'when' does a substasnce cause an event? Well, at the time at which the event occurs. So substance causation is simultaneous causation. The only reason to deny this is a dogmatic conviction that the causation must precede its effect.

It is unclear to me how you are addressing the OP. Do you think self-creation is possible?

If you consider a beginning at time zero as a creation and that beginning is embedded in a larger whole and that larger whole causes time to start than the cosmos, that larger whole, can be said to cause the smaller part, the time start at zero. Self creation? Not sure.

I presented an argument for the coherence of self-creation in the OP. You're not saying anything that addresses it.

Is it correct, for instance, that the only reason to think self-creation is impossible is the assumption that a cause must precede its effect? If the answer is 'yes', then it seems we have no reason to think it is impossible as simultaneous causation seems perfectly coherent.

For whether time began or not, there was no time when the ball was not on the cushion. — Bartricks

This is what is incoherent. Your phrase "there was no time when..." implies that the described scenario was real when there was "no time". Therefore you imply that time began when the ball came to be on the cushion. "There was no time when the ball was not on the cushion" implies that before the ball was on the cushion there was no time, therefore time started when the ball came to be on the cushion.

Regardless, both the ball and cushion are known to be temporal objects, they exist "in time", and this means that there is time before each of them and time after each of them. They are each produced and destroyed. This is contrary to your phrase "no time when...". And there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that they could have both come into existence at the exact same time, with the ball stuck to the cushion. That's a nonsensical proposal.

Now, 'when' does a substasnce cause an event? Well, at the time at which the event occurs. So substance causation is simultaneous causation. The only reason to deny this is a dogmatic conviction that the causation must precede its effect. — Bartricks

This is a faulty description. The cause of an event is prior in time to the event itself. You can call that "dogmatic conviction" if you want, but it's simply the convention we follow as to the meaning of "cause". You go outside the convention and you start to sound nonsensical. Simultaneous events are better known by the term "coincidental", not "causal".

This is a faulty description. The cause of an event is prior in time to the event itself. You can call that "dogmatic conviction" if you want, but it's simply the convention we follow as to the meaning of "cause". You go outside the convention and you start to sound nonsensical. Simultaneous events are better known by the term "coincidental", not "causal". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it is a dogmatic conviction. You can show me to be wrong by providing an argument for what you have just asserted.

Substance causation is coherent. And when a substance causes an event, the event is simultaneous with the cause.

This is what is incoherent. Your phrase "there was no time when..." implies that the described scenario was real when there was "no time". — Metaphysician Undercover

You're confused. Time either had a beginning or it did not. Those exhaust the possibilities. Now, I have a view about which one is correct, but I don't need to say or defend my view here. For the simple fact is that whichever one is true the ball was always on the cushion.

Kant used a famous example of a ball on a cushion. The depression in the cushion is being caused by the ball on the cushion even if both call and cushion have been in that arrangement for eternity. — Bartricks

There is a counter-argument against this. If and only if the arrangement has been that way for all previous eternity, then there was no caused depression. The depression has existed since all eternity, but it was not caused. If something is caused, there is a change; and in this arrangement there is no change. If there is no change, there is no causation. That is a basic part of the concept "to cause".

Kant fails.

— Bartricks

If you insist that there can be causation without change, then you could say that an object existing without change keeps on causing itself form moment to moment. Which is absurd.

Yes, it is a dogmatic conviction. You can show me to be wrong by providing an argument for what you have just asserted. — Bartricks

I don't deny this, I think pretty much all use of words is dogmatic conviction. However, that's how we understand things, through such convictions.

Substance causation is coherent. And when a substance causes an event, the event is simultaneous with the cause. — Bartricks

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate this. So far, what you've produced seems very incoherent to me.

For the simple fact is that whichever one is true the ball was always on the cushion. — Bartricks

As I said, this is incoherent. Balls and cushions are contingent things, they come into being, they each have a beginning in time. This simple fact is contradicted by "the ball was always on the cushion".

I don't deny this, I think pretty much all use of words is dogmatic conviction. However, that's how we understand things, through such convictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's quite wrong. You seem to think that our convictions determine how things are with reality. No.

'm still waiting for you to demonstrate this. So far, what you've produced seems very incoherent to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Substance causation is causation by a substance rather than an event. But when a substance causes an event it does so directly. There is not some prior act on the part of the substance that causes the event. The substance causes the event. Thus the causation is simultaneous. If you think it isn't, then I think it must be because you are confusing substance causation with event causation.

As I said, this is incoherent. Balls and cushions are contingent things, they come into being, they each have a beginning in time. This simple fact is contradicted by "the ball was always on the cushion". — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not incoherent! Look - either time had a beginning or it did not. Or do you think there's some other option?

If time had a beginning, then suppose that the ball was on the cushion from the beginning of time.

if time did not have a beginning, then suppose that the ball was on the cushion for past eternal.

Also, you are confused about contingency - a contingent thing is a thing that 'can' not exist. It doesn't have to have not existed at some point. It is sufficient that it is metaphysically possible for it not to exist.

The whole point is that the ball is clearly causing the depression even if there was never a time when the depression did not exist.
What you're doing is taking the dogma that causes precede their effects and applying it to this case and getting the conclusion that the ball is not causing the depression.
The ball is causing the depression. There was never a time when the depression was not there. Thus the cause did not precede the effect. Thus the dogma is false.

Anyway, do you agree that if simultaneous causation is coherent, then self-creation is possible?

If you insist that there can be causation without change, then you could say that an object existing without change keeps on causing itself form moment to moment. Which is absurd. — god must be atheist

Where did I say there can be causation without change? I think there can be, but I never said any such thing.

My claim is that there can be simultaneous causation - that the cause and effect can occur at the same time.

And, if that's correct, then self-creation is possible, for the only reason to think it impossible is the conviction that causes must precede their effects.

No. I submit that self-creation is impossible because I never participated in either a decision to exist, or a decision who to exist as. Or, stating it in a different way, Self-creation would require an absolutely free will, which is impossible.

What you're doing is taking the dogma that causes precede their effects and applying it to this case and getting the conclusion that the ball is not causing the depression. — Bartricks

Yu did not read my post, you just regurgitate what you are capable of.

I said causation implies change. I did not say "before" and "after". Idi not say cause precedes effect. I said without change there is no causation. You are not addressing that, instead, you are saying like your grandmother's parrot the same thing over and over again. That won't work. Time to start reading and thinking, not only responding to what you believe others have said.

Where did I say there can be causation without change? I think there can be, but I never said any such thing. — Bartricks

In your example given by Kant. That was a causation without change.

Time to start to think and think back and have a memory and have some capacity to reason, my friend.

No. I submit that self-creation is impossible because I never participated in either a decision to exist, or a decision who to exist as. Or, stating it in a different way, Self-creation would require an absolutely free will, which is impossible. — charles ferraro

My claim that self-creation is possible does not entail that you created yourself. If I say that it is possible to be a billionaire, it is no objection to point out that you yourself lack a billion.

But anyway, you have things back to front. If we have free will then we have created ourselves (or we are uncreated). And so free will implies self-creation. And as we do have free will, we can conclude taht we have indeed created ourselves (or that we have not been created).

I said causation implies change. I did not say "before" and "after". Idi not say cause precedes effect. — god must be atheist

Causation does not imply change (I said above that I do not believe that causation entails change).

You don't seem to have fastened onto the relevant issue. Do causes have to precede their effects? That's the central issue here, not whether causation entails change.

In the cushion case we do indeed have causation without change. But that's not the point the example is being used to illustrate. What it is being used to illustrate is that there can be simultaneous causation.

Note, the other example I deployed - the example of substance causation - does (or can) involve change. The point in that case is that the change occurs simultaneous with what causes it.

Do try and focus on the relevant issue.

Causation does not imply change (I said above that I do not believe that causation entails change). — Bartricks

Yes, yes... and seeing does not imply looking... and horizontal does not imply direction... and wood does not imply carbon content... and yes means no, and maybe means always, and stupidity is the new intelligence.

You should have a great re-write, Bartricks. Really. If you are this blind to insight, you should redesign the language to your own liking, so no matter what incredibly incongruent thing you say, you are still right, always and ever.

Except with the currently adopted meaning of "causation", there is a complete by-in by all parties who live by the consensus of meaning of words and expressions, which implies that there is no causation without change. If you can't see that, then, well, you are already living a life of la loca vida, where no matter what language means, you are above it all.

Yes, it is a dogmatic conviction. You can show me to be wrong by providing an argument for what you have just asserted. — Bartricks

No, we can't provide that to you. Because you are doggoned insisting on US having to accept the unacceptable, and then you call us dogmatic.

We are not dogmatic. You are, instead, acting in a megalomanic way... you think you can change the meaning of words and you believe that we must accept that new meaning... and you call us dogmatic when we refuse to do that.

There is a meta-breakdown in your logic. You solely and unilaterally demand that things be understood in oppositional ways than what they are supposed to be and in fact are. Then when we say we cannot do that, because of what the words of the language mean, you say we are DOGMATIC because... get this... because we insist that the words mean what they mean, and we reject a new and incongruent meaning that you, alone and arbitrarily, have assigned to a particular word.

post deleted

Though it's hard for me to admit, some damned good anakysis! The bartricks analysis...

What on earth are you on about?

I have no idea whether something could create itself i.e. self-creation is a rather difficult idea to wrap my head around, but I can tell you this, with what might seem as an inordinate amount of certainty, self-destruction is possible and has been documented (re suicide and the related self-destruct button installed in spaceships seen in fiction.

As for the cause and effect existing simultaneously, it fails to fulfill a criterion for causality viz. that the cause must temporally precede the effect.In your ball & cushion example, the ball exists before the depression in the cushion.