It seems that some sort of atemporal causation is required to cause time but this is not the same as our familiar temporal form of causation. — Devans99
Therefore, not all causation is by events. Some of what is caused to occur must be caused to occur not by any event, but by objects - substances. — Bartricks
The only kind of object that exists by its very nature is a simple object. — Bartricks
I'm not sure how you can cause something without it being an event. — Devans99
Then you can't run the first cause argument. If every event if caused by a prior event, then you get an infinity of events. And if you're fine with that, then you don't need God. — Bartricks
On the other hand, if you're not fine with that and think that there needs to be an initial cause of any chain of events, than that initial cause cannot be an event, but must be a thing. — Bartricks
Maybe God is indivisible which I guess would meet your definition. Or he could be composed of parts that all exist timelessly and permantly. I am not sure which. — Devans99
And the initial cause must be timeless. — Devans99
All dumb mechanical systems tend to equilibrium:
Hence, a thought you hold true must always be reflected in nature. Metaphysical actuality. — jgill
We then took the chain to be a set of all things caused and called it the contingent set. — Miles
This we called the necessary existent by which we meant something non-contingent.
So far is the summary of what we said before. — Miles
Meaning; given there is a world of events, we can conclude that in this world there necessary exists some non-contingent being. In other words given there is a world of events it is necessary that such an entity exists. — Miles
Yesterday we also agreed this this thing must be simple and non-composite, so at least one in nature if not yet agreed to be one in number. That was agreed so because if it had parts it would be contingent on its parts. We then arrived at a simple definition. — Miles
The use of contingency and necessary is the following: contingent just means dependent on a causes/s — Miles
Whether you like the terms or not, talk of necessity means given the world of events means we ‘cannot fail’ but to have a non-event causing it, meaning it is necessary that this is to in this world. Now, you can switch ‘necessary’ with ‘cannot fail’, I have no issue with that but both mean the same thing. You pick. — Miles
The issue is to do with causation, not time. There's event causation - that's the familiar kind in which one event causes another event. But we know - know - that not all causation can be of this kind. It has nothing to do with 'time', but everything to do with the impossibility of there being actual infinities.
If all causation is by events (whether prior or concurrent) then we would have to have an actual infinity of events.
There cannot be any actual infinities of anything.
Therefore, not all causation is by events. Some of what is caused to occur must be caused to occur not by any event, but by objects - substances.
Not, note, by the object undergoing some change - that would be an event. No, 'directly'. The substance causes the event, not by means of another event, but 'directly'.
That argument establishes that there is substance causation and that such substances exist. Furthermore, as such substances cannot have been caused to exist by any prior event - for then the regress starts again - such substances must be self-existent. That is, they exist by their nature.
The only kind of object that exists by its very nature is a simple object.
Thus we can conclude that there exist some simple objects and that these simple objects are ultimately causally responsible for all else that exists.
Time doesn't come into it. We can get to that conclusion without invoking time.
But note that 'creating time' requires timeless causation - which is exactly what substance causation would be, given that it is 'events' that are essentially in time.
If God is a simple substance with the power of substance causation, then God can create time by 'substance causing' it to exist. As substance causation is not causation by an event - and it is events that are datable - this explains how God can create time. — Bartricks
These substances that youre talking about have anything to do with, the gaps in cause and effect possibilties?Therefore, not all causation is by events. Some of what is caused to occur must be caused to occur not by any event, but by objects - substances. — Bartricks
It's a self-evident truth of reason that every event has a cause.
And again: can something come out of nothing?
Immanence- Are the causal relata immanent, or transcendent? That is, are they concrete and located in spacetime, or abstract and non-spatiotemporal? — BrandonMcDade
It is not only not observed, it is semantic self-contradiction, fallacy in itself to begin with. — Zelebg
My main point however is that it is unavoidable to say ‘there must be’. As I said before if we agree all houses have foundations, and then also agree we do in fact and actually have a house, then it follows, unavoidably, that there must be a foundation. It is working the problem backward. — Miles
Another thing, let's clean up the semantics and terminology. The main standpoints that everyone is taking is too vague to be effective. — BrandonMcDade
Immanence- Are the causal relata immanent, or transcendent? That is, are they concrete and located in spacetime, or abstract and non-spatiotemporal? — BrandonMcDade
In practice, one finds two main arguments on the question of immanence. First, there is the argument from pushing, which maintains that the relata must be immanent so as to push things around. Second, there is the argument from absences, which maintains that the relata must be transcendent so that absences can figure in causal relations. — BrandonMcDade
These substances that youre talking about have anything to do with, the gaps in cause and effect possibilties? — BrandonMcDade
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.