Not sure I follow. Let's say object X pops into existence. So, at time t1, X does not exist. At time t2, X exists. Did some object or event at time t1 have to have been the cause of X coming into existence? My answer is 'no'. It is possible that X could have caused itself to exist. At time t2 there was an event - the event of X coming into existence - and that event was caused by X. X caused itself to exist.

What I don't follow is why that event should be characterized as 'eternally stuck'.

What you mean by "coming into existence"?

I take it that something has come into existence if there was a time when it did not exist and then a time when it does.

So at some time it doesn't exist and exist simultaneously?

No. At some time it does not exist and then at another it does.

So it exists an doesn't exist at the same time. Must feel pretty schizo.

no in between.

You asked what coming into existence involves. I have answered.

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. — Bartricks

That’s at best evidence to you not to me, since that all “events have causes” is not self-evident to me for logic and semantic “reasons” as I clarified. And if whatever you call “reason” is in conflict with logic and semantics then “intellectual confusion” would be a more appropriate way to call it for sure.

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. — Bartricks

My argument is based on logic and semantics, and that’s all I need to argue about “consistency” as far as I’m concerned. Not to mention the fact that you yourself didn’t offer any evidence to support your claim that something can create itself out of nothing. You just offered an argument that “simultaneous causation” would solve the putative inconsistency of “self-creation” as you formulated it. The problem to me is that “simultaneous causation” is not enough, you would need additional metaphysical hypotheses (like “events have causes”) as well as some semantic artifice (e.g. our ordinary causal claims involve only numerical if not logically distinct “relata” and express logically asymmetric relations, at least at token level, yet neither is true of “self-creation” claims). That’s why I don’t think I’m off topic as much as you didn’t seem to think you were off topic when you brought your disputable metaphysical hypothesis up in the first place.

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

If “X creates Y and X = Y” is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between a non-existent X and an existent Y then the claim would be incoherent because X would be existing and non-existing at the same time, since X = Y.
If “X creates Y and X = Y” is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between existing relata, then the inconsistency is in its explanatory role because in order to bring into existence anything at t1 X needs to already exist, but if X already exists so it’s Y (since X=Y) and there would be nothing left to bring into existence. In other words, what needs to be causally explained (X existence) is at the same time what needs to be presupposed by the causal explanation (why does X exist at t1? Because X exists at t1). That’s why your inference to the best explanation (“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.”) fails. The explanation is only “apparent” as any circular explanation (BTW were we to accept such circular causal explanations as you suggest, then we would theoretically need no other causal explanation than the circular one for all that happens, and yet we would practically find it always totally useless).

Let me raise an objection to my view that no one has yet made. Self destruction. I take it that self destruction is obviously coherent. X can cause x not to exist. However, clearly this can't be simultaneous causation as then we have a contradiction: x exists and does not exist at the same time.
In reply: my claim is not that all events are simultaneously with their causes, but only that it is possible for an event to be simultaneous with its cause. That applies to substance causation too. Substance causation can be simultaneous, but it doesn't have to be.

First of all the term "creation" poisons your question (fallacy). Entities and structures in Nature emerge through processes governed by specific rules all the time.
The facts available to you do NOT justify the use of the concept of a creator as a first cause.
Your philosophy derails at this point.

I don't see how anything you have said engages with anything i have argued. You have just assumed I am mistaken without providing any evidence whatsoever. Engage. With. The. Argument.

I pointed out that your main question is fallacious. Creation is a act performed by agents not an intrinsic feature of nature. You are poisoning the well and begging a question that isn't designed to address facts.

I pointed out that your main question is fallacious. — Nickolasgaspar

What does that even mean? Fallacies are features of arguments. So, identify the fallacy in my argument. Don't just say the word 'fallacy' and think that'll do the trick.

Stop - stop - naming fallacies! Argue something.

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm
You assume "creation" and "creators" in your argument.

So?

So your unwarranted assumptions render your syllogisms non philosophical.

You're just saying words in the vague hope that they'll somehow constitute a good criticism.

What assumptions are you talking about? Christ - argue something! I mean, is your point that I have made assumptions? Is that it?

That’s at best evidence to you not to me, since that all “events have causes” is not self-evident to me for logic and semantic “reasons” as I clarified. — neomac

So what? What, you think your faculty of reason is the only one that matters? If the reason of others - including virtually all of those whose faculties of reason are so good they've entered the canon of great thinkers - represents events to have causes, that doesn't count for anything because the great neomac's reason makes no such representation. Ooo, mustn't contradict the great neomac's reason - his reason, uniquely among us, is our sole source of insight into reality. Get over yourself.

My argument is based on logic and semantics, — neomac

Ooo. Yeah, I'm not arguing anything, just blurting things.

What argument? What is your argument? Note, you seem to think the possibility that events may lack causes is some kind of evidence against simultaneous causation. How? How does that work, exactly?

You just offered an argument that “simultaneous causation” would solve the putative inconsistency of “self-creation” as you formulated it. T — neomac

Er, no. YOu don't seem to understand what my argument is. It is in the OP. I argued that the only reason to think self-creation is incoherent is the assumption that causes must precede their effects.

So, the only reason to think X is Y.

Then I argued that the assumption is false.

So, Y is false.

If the only reason to think X is Y.....and Y is false.....then there is no reason to think X. Yes? Does your logic and semantics agree?

If “X creates Y and X = Y” is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between a non-existent X and an existent Y then the claim would be incoherent because X would be existing and non-existing at the same time, since X = Y. — neomac

No. Christ almighty, try listening.

There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes?

What caused X to come into existence? X.

Do we have X existing and not existing at the same time? No. We have X existing at t2. It's cause - X - also exists at t2. So, we do not have existing and not existing at the same time.

This does not make sense to you because you still think causes have to precede their effects. Otherwise I am at a loss to understand why you're not getting this.

There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes? — Bartricks

Then at what time it came into existence? That time lays between t1 and t2, right? But what at the creation moment itself? What about it? Where does it come from? There is no before and after. Is it there or not?

T2.

T2? What about it? X came into being at T2? At T2. But at t2 it disappears into the other direction. So what happents at t2. Is X existent or non-existent? Both! How can that be?

My philosophy is to not analyze things to death.

On closer inspection, X can come to be at t. Like that! Not being there one moment and being there the next moment. Now what?

If X belongs to the half closed interval [t, inf) and lays just outside the half open (-inf, t), then no problemo signor!

Sunday afternoon philosopher

I don't know what you are on about. You're trying to create puzzles where there are none.
At time t1, x does not exist. At time t2, x does exist. So x came into existence at t2. And the cause of this was x. And x caused it to happen at t2.

Yes! So what's the problem?

If the reason of others - including virtually all of those whose faculties of reason are so good they've entered the canon of great thinkers - represents events to have causes, that doesn't count for anything because the great neomac's reason makes no such representation. Ooo, mustn't contradict the great neomac's reason - his reason, uniquely among us, is our sole source of insight into reality. Get over yourself. — Bartricks

Dude, I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about "reason". Suck it up and move on.

Yeah, I'm not arguing anything, just blurting things.
What argument? What is your argument? Note, you seem to think the possibility that events may lack causes is some kind of evidence against simultaneous causation. How? How does that work, exactly? — Bartricks

You are confused. I argued that: “‘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’” to point out that self-creation understood as a form of self-causation is a metaphysical hypothesis (and parasitic to the notion of “causality”) one has to argue for. That’s all.

YOu don't seem to understand what my argument is. It is in the OP. I argued that the only reason to think self-creation is incoherent is the assumption that causes must precede their effects. — Bartricks

And I claim that it is not true that is the “only reason” to think that self-creation is incoherent is that causes must precede their effects, because even if causes and effects are simultaneous we could still argue that the notion of self-creation is incoherent (see below).

There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes?
What caused X to come into existence? X. — Bartricks

Here my counter arguments against this answer:

• Semantic artifice: “our ordinary causal claims involve only numerical if not logically distinct ‘relata’ and express logically asymmetric relations, at least at token level, yet neither is true of ‘self-creation’ claims”. It’s “creation” as “bringing into existence at t2 from non-existence at t1” and not “causality” that requires the pre-existence of the creator wrt creature (e.g. the hen laying her eggs, the artist painting his portrait on the canvas, the blooming tree with its flowers).
• Fallacious explanation: “If ‘X creates Y and X = Y’ is understood as a simultaneous causal relation between existing relata, then the inconsistency is in its explanatory role because in order to bring into existence anything at t1 X needs to already exist, but if X already exists so it’s Y (since X=Y) and there would be nothing left to bring into existence. In other words, what needs to be causally explained (X existence) is at the same time what needs to be presupposed by the causal explanation (why does X exist at t1? Because X exists at t1). That’s why your inference to the best explanation (‘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.’) fails. The explanation is only ‘apparent’ as any circular explanation (BTW were we to accept such circular causal explanations as you suggest, then we would theoretically need no other causal explanation than the circular one for all that happens, and yet we would practically find it always totally useless)”.

Dude, I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about "reason". Suck it up and move on. — neomac

:lol:
:up:

There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes? — Bartricks

Dear god! X "came" doesn't apply! Get over it! As wisely suggested by a fellow forum member: "Suck it up and move on!"

You are making no sense. X did come into existence. Perhaps you are conceptually confused (or worse), but if something does not exist at one time and does at a later time, then it came into existence.