You think a morally perfect, all powerful, all knowing person would create a universe like this?!? Christ almighty! You are clearly not a person of discernment.

What went wrong? The emergence of mankind?

I don't know for sure - these are all matters left open. The point is just that it is no part of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent that one have created oneself or anything else, much less a universe full of ignorant gits.

But I just made that point in passing. The point here, in this thread, is that self-creation is perfectly coherent.

It is often thought that where existence is concerned, the options are that some things have always existed and that from these other things were made, or alternatively (and incoherently) that everything that exists has been created by something else. I am pointing out that there is another option: some things have created themselves.

So the universe has created itself?

When did I say that? I am arguing that self-creation is coherent. I am not saying anything about what has, or has not, created itself.

Ah, the concept is coherent. Yes, I could have told you that from the start.

Ah, the concept is coherent. Yes, I could have told you that from the start. — Haglund

You absolutely couldn't.

You didn't even understand that that was the issue under debate! It's not like it isn't clear. It's there in the OP!

You absolutely couldn't. — Bartricks

That's because I thought you meant litterary creation. An egg being pulled out of the hat.

I mean that literal self creation is coherent. That means I think it can happen. Whether it has is another matter.

Read the OP! I am arguing that literal self-creation is possible. It is possible for something to be created by something else. It is also possible for something to create itself. There is nothing problematic in the idea.

If someone says such things they are not thereby asserting that anything has actually created itself.

For instance, it is possible there's a zebra in my sitting room. The idea is a coherent one. Have I just asserted that there is a zebra in my sitting room? No.

For instance, it is possible there's a zebra in my sitting room. The idea is a coherent one. Have I just asserted that there is a zebra in my sitting room? No. — Bartricks

This actually can happen. A zebra can be appearing from the vacuum. In quantum mechanics there is a chance that this happens. So if you wait long enough you can be stuck with a whole zoo! Lucky you!

Point missed. I put the ball in front of the goal so that you can get a point, but what do you do? You try and eat it.

Point missed. I put the ball in front of the goal so that you can get a point, but what do you do? You try and eat it — Bartricks

I'm hungry for balls. If it lays eternally on a cushion, it's not safe with me around. And when I've eaten it, I cause myself laying eternally on it. So I self cause depression eternally and coherently. What more does one want?

Engage in the following thought experiment. Imagine something just pops into existence. It didn't exist. Then it does. What happened? Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then. It brought itself into being. That's perfectly coherent if simultaneous causation is coherent (which it is). — Bartricks

Why does "popping into existence" without cause is incoherent?! There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction.

You don't seem to understand what simultaneous causation involves. The cause exists as does the effect. You seem to be thinking that in a case of self-creation, the thing doing the creating does not yet exist. No, it exists simultaneous with its effect, it is just that in this case the effect is itself. — Bartricks

What?! If cause X and effect Y both simultaneously exist and X=Y, there is no creation of Y by X, precisely because the existence of Y is granted by the identity between X and Y so there is no need of whatever causal-thingy between them you are raving about. The notion of "cause" in your case makes literally no sense. Period. You made such a preposterous claim probably because you didn't clarify to yourself what "cause" means in metaphysical terms and, at the same time, you are misled by the putative explanatory power of the notion of "cause" based on some intellectual compulsion ("Did nothing bring it into being? Well, that seems incoherent: something doesn't come from nothing. So, it caused itself, then", which looks very much like a circular argument meant to avoid an infinite regress, and both are fallacious).

Why are you saying that we have 'preserving into existence'? I don't even know what that means. — Bartricks

I already explained that: "at best it's existence preservation like when a person feeds herself to survive, and nobody would literally take self-feeding as a form of self-creation." Preserving existence from ceasing to exist. That's what I think it would make more sense for you to contend, but it's not self-creation.

You seem to think that if God created himself, then he wouldn't be God. I don't know why you think that. To be God a person simply needs to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Why do they need 'not' to have created themselves? Odd. — Bartricks

I didn't claim that, nor implied that, nor suggested that. I took into consideration the notion of "God" when talking about existence preservation, not self-creation. I just surmised you might go in that direction, that's all. Anyway "self-creation" is either an incoherent metaphysical notion or explanatorily empty.

It is often thought that where existence is concerned, the options are that some things have always existed and that from these other things were made, or alternatively (and incoherently) that everything that exists has been created by something else. I am pointing out that there is another option: some things have created themselves. — Bartricks

So you offer a third option. A zebra can appear in your room. Now what?

No it doesn't. A contingent object is an object that 'can' not exist (as opposed to a necessary object, which is an object that can't not exist). — Bartricks

As you misunderstand philosophical use of "cause", you also misunderstand philosophical use of "contingent object".

Once more: if an object exists at a particular time, what's to stop it existing at all times? — Bartricks

I provided the argument for this, its based in the law of identity. You haven't adequately addressed it.

Note, if self creation is coherent,.../quote]

Obviously "self-creation" is not coherent, but you refuse to accept the principles which demonstrate its incoherency. That is not my problem.
— Bartricks

That's called an 'argument'. Address it. — Bartricks

The argument has been addressed, "self-creation" has been thoroughly demonstrated as incoherent.

There are extrinsic and intrinsic properties, and intrinsic properties are those properties that are essential to an object's identity. Temporal properties are extrinsic, not intrinsic. I am clearly the same person I was a second ago. And my mug is the same mug it was a second ago. — Bartricks

Extrinsic properties are not essential to a subject, they are accidental to the subject, that's why all human beings can be said to be "human beings". However, all accidentals, including extrinsic properties, are essential to the identity of an object, that is what makes any particular object, the unique object which it is. That objects are unique is what makes the law of identity a valid principle, and why the same thing cannot have two distinct times of existence. If your time of existence is from 1992 until the present day, you cannot also have a time of existence of 1888-1946. That's why your principle, that if an object can exist at one specified time, it can also exist at another, is false.

If this doesn't settle the matter, then we have to consider Bartricks' case a lost case. :up:

I made that conclusion a long time ago. I don't know why I continue.

I felt into the same trap!

Why does "popping into existence" without cause is incoherent?! — neomac

Because events have causes. Odd that you think causes must precede their effects, but think effects don't have to have causes!

I think causes do not have to precede their effects. You think I'm wrong about that (or do you think I'm right, in which case you agree with me but don't realize it). Yet you think effects don't need to have causes! Your view is just bizarre and wholly unmotivated. I mean, I could understand someone having a problem with self-creation if that person believed - correctly - that all events have causes. But I can't understand what kind of troubled mind would have trouble with self-creation at the same time as being fine with the idea of something coming into existence out of nothing. I can only assume that you are one of those who thinks if Bartricks says it, it must be false regardless of where sane argument leads.

What?! If cause X and effect Y both simultaneously exist and X=Y, there is no creation of Y by X, precisely because the existence of Y is granted by the identity between X and Y so there is no need of whatever causal-thingy between them you are raving about. — neomac

What on earth are you on about? You're just begging the question. You keep banging on about identity. X causes X to exist. The only reason to think that X has not caused X to exist is the erroneous belief that a cause must precede its effect. If a cause does not have to precede its effect, then it can be simultaneous with it. And that means that X can cause X to exist.

Again, if you think events don't even need causes then I'm at a total loss to understand why you are having difficulties with this.

I didn't claim that, nor implied that, nor suggested that. I took into consideration the notion of "God" when talking about existence preservation, not self-creation. — neomac

Yes you did. First, you are the one who thinks that if X simultaneously causes X to exist then X is preserving X not creating X. That's not my view - it makes no sense whatsoever. If X causes X to exist, then X has caused X to exist. Really not hard to understand.

Then you suggested that somehow something I was saying was hard to reconcile with God's existence. No, nothing I am arguing poses any difficulty for God at all. As I explained. If you think there's a problem it is up to you to articulate it and to articulate it clearly, not vaguely gesture at things and then leave me to try and fathom what the hell you are on about.

So you offer a third option. A zebra can appear in your room. Now what? — Haglund

What are you on about? Are you following anything I am saying at all? Anything?

You agree that simultaneous causation is possible - you said that a few posts ago, though no doubt your views change moment to moment - and that thus self-creation is possible. So you agree with me. THere's nothing more to be said. Why are you now asking me about zebras in my sitting room? You don't seem to be getting any point at all.

As you misunderstand philosophical use of "cause", you also misunderstand philosophical use of "contingent object". — Metaphysician Undercover

The arrogance is staggering. You hadn't even heard of substance causation, yet now you think you know what contingent means, even though it is quite obvious you don't.

Contingent does not mean 'dependent'. The opposite of contingent is necessary. if something exists of necessity, then it is incapable of not existing. Whereas if something exists contingently then it is capable of not existing. Christ - read a book!

I provided the argument for this, its based in the law of identity. You haven't adequately addressed it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, and I addressed it. You just confused intrinsic properties with extrinsic ones and then concluded that nothing persists at all.

Plus you're not addressing my arguments. Substance causation is coherent. If you deny this, then you are off on a regress. And substance causation is simultaneous causation. So simultaneous causation is coherent. And that means self-creation is coherent. Now for the umpteenth time, address that argument. (To do that, you need to say which premise you deny and provide an argument in support of your denial - and then I'll assess that argument.....note, most here think that if they present an argument, no matter how shite, then the job is done....no, the argument needs to be assessed. Now, deny a premise in teh argument I just gave and provide an argument in support of it. So, you must either deny that substance causation is coherent - and to do that you need to show how you're not off on an infinite regress - or you need to deny that substance causation is simultaneous causation...which requires first understanding what substance causation is, an understanding you seem currently to lack).

Because events have causes. Odd that you think causes must precede their effects, but think effects don't have to have causes!
I think causes do not have to precede their effects. You think I'm wrong about that (or do you think I'm right, in which case you agree with me but don't realize it). Yet you think effects don't need to have causes! — Bartricks

Dude you are twice delusional. I never claimed that cause must precede its effect. Instead I explicitly argued for the simultaneous co-existence of cause and effect if cause is to be understood as a relation in metaphysical terms (which is something you didn't clarify yet). Indeed relations metaphysically depend on the existence of all the terms they relate. Besides if cause and effect were in strict temporal succession, then when the cause occurs, then the effect doesn't, and when the effect occurs, then the cause doesn't. So there would be no intelligible interaction between the causal factor and its effect.
Again, what is your argument to support the idea that all events have causes?! As I said "There is no logical inconsistency in claiming that something does not exist at t1 but it exists at t2. There is no contradiction." Even the notion of "event" doesn't analytically imply "being caused". Yours is just an additional metaphysical hypothesis you didn't argue for. So your claims are odd and unmotivated. And evidently so.

You're just begging the question. You keep banging on about identity — Bartricks

No I didn't, precisely because self-identity holds independently from self-creation and the latter is under question. On the other side, you begged the question by implicitly inserting a metaphysical hypothesis you didn't argue for "Because events have causes".

you are the one who thinks that if X simultaneously causes X to exist then X is preserving X not creating X — Bartricks

Stop strawmanning. I never made such a claim, nor implied, nor suggested. I was talking about existence preservation just as an alternative to self-creation.

An event is a zero-dimensional structure, a point. Cause and effect are defined for infinitesimals only. An infinitesimal is not a point. From which we have to conclude logically that cause and effect don't apply to an event.

I am not sure that my answer is what you are seeking but I am writing it because it has been going through my mind when I look at your thread. My answer is self creation would involve cloning. Of course, that is different from creating out of nowhere, which would be more like the account of the Virgin birth of Jesus.

It is self-evident to reason that events have causes. Evidence that it is self-evident to reason is the fact that throughout history it has been appealed to by those whose faculties of reason seem among the very best. The burden of proof, then, is squarely on you.

But do focus on the relevant issue. Whether events have to have causes or not is beside the point. The point I am making is that self-creation is coherent. Whether events have to have causes is irrelevant. Note, the claim that self-creation is coherent is entirely consistent with the view that some events lack causes. So if you want, you can continue to insist - on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - that some events lack causes, but you'll just be off topic.

It turns out, then, that you accept that simultaneous causation is coherent. Why, then, do you think self-creation is incoherent? Explain.

I am not seeking an answer. The thread's title is a question - that's the question under consideration. But in the OP I presented an answer: yes it is. I presented an argument in support of it. I am seeking rational criticism of that argument. So, if you think the answer is 'no', then you owe a refutation of the argument I made in the OP.

My answer is self creation would involve cloning. Of course, that is different from creating out of nowhere, which would be more like the account of the Virgin birth of Jesus. — Jack Cummins

Cloning would be replication, not self-creation. I don't understand the second part at all.

Cause and effect don't apply to an event, so neither does self causation. Self causation would be equivalent to self effecting. Which would mean the event is eternally stuck. So maybe you're right. Only an eternally stuck event could cause as well as effect itself. Self causation implies self effecting.