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

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 — Bartricks

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

An eternal series does not have aseity because nothing is first to cause the effect. Everything is an effect

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 — Bartricks

Yes you have. A cushion with a ball on it eternally. My god, am I really discussing about a cushion with a ball laying on it eternally? The dent causing the ball to lay on it? What's the problem? Tell me.

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.

It's all about time. If time doesn't go forward then what are we looking at? A photograph?

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 — Bartricks

Why is that an incoherent notion?

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.

Your way of constructing self creation makes no sense because you don't have eternal time. How can something create itself before it exists. Any way of constructing this amounts to a need for eternity

Read the OP.

There is no argument in the OP

Simultaneous creation is not self creation.

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.

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'.

That's not an argument. The first premise is wrong. Those are two different things. Suppose we have minute one with the ball on the cushion. It continuously presses the cushion till minute 2. But there is no answer yet as to creation! The issue of creation is not answered yet. All you have is a local cause

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

It's clearly an incoherent thought process. Why consider the ball and cushion as separate. I see one thing only. Saying the ball and cushion exist apart is not self evident. I see a cushba.

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. — Bartricks

It doesn't mean ziltch. There can be no conclusion drawn from this weird experiment. The universe is eternal and is made by gods. If you think it's self created on the basis of some frozen cushba, be my guest.

How can the cushba even exist without time? Is it a thought about the universe? Is the thought cushba a thought about the universe?

How can you talk about cause and effect without time?

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.

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

More sophistry. The mechanics of simultaneous causality is not related to how you defined self creation

All your first premises are wrong.

Creating oneself is the same as something from nothing.

I return the spoon. Stick it in your... wherever you want, and enjoy the self created infliction.

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.

I have put it in my Haglund.

But that can't exist like a ball on a pillow that has no time. If time is eternal the series can exist by the fact it moves while existing. What you propose is a theory of time which wasn't given much detail in you OP

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

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 [the] something is not the nothing, but the something itself. — Bartricks

Moments of clarity like this make a mockery of claims that all that is worthwhile has been mined from philosophy. :chin:

Moments of clarity like this make a mockery of claims that all that is worthwhile has been mined from philosophy — jgill

:lol:

You make me laugh out loudly!