If A is true then it refutes itself and is false; a contradiction! A can't be true. — Agent Smith

I do not follow you. If there are no truths, then A will not be true. You have said that it would be true if there are no truths. But that's you asserting a contradiction. I think that if there are no truths, then there are no truths.

Presumably you think that what it is for there to be no truths is for the proposition 'there are no truths' to be true. But that's confused: that's a contradiction.

The premises of the argument were that 1, everything that begins to exist has a cause; and 2, the universe began to exist.
You have decided that the truth of 2 somehow depends upon the claim that if x is true of everything in the universe, then x is true of the universe itself.
No it doesn't.

But anyway, if by 'the universe' you mean the sum total of all things that have come into being, then of course the universe came into being. How does that not follow? It would only not follow if you think there can be an actual infinity of events. But that's precisely what Craig denies. So, explain to me how something made of things that came into being did not itself come into being. And do that without begging the question by assuming there can be an actual infinity of events - something Craig denies.
If there is no actual infinity of events, then the universe - if by that we mean the sum total of all things that have come into being - came into being. And thus there would need to be a cause of it's coming into being.

I know - that's what I just said. And what I said in the OP.

As I said in the OP, hypothetical consent is not consent.

The proposition "Rachel would have consented to have X done to her" can be true. And it is the moral relevance of such truths that I am talking about.

You're contradicting yourself. — Agent Smith

I've never done that.

First you affirm it isn't (always) possible to know what someone wants and then, second you deny that very position by averring that hypothetical consent is permissible. — Agent Smith

How's that any kind of contradiction?

I repeat: not knowing whether C is satisfied or not is not evidence that C is false.

We ought not to hurt another, other things being equal. But sometimes we can't tell whether doing X will hurt another or not. By your wonky lights that's evidence that it is false that we ought not to hurt another.

No. Pour l'amour de Dieu

Problemo! If Rachel has a different set of values, you wouldn't be able to give/withhold consent on her behalf. One man's meat is another man's poison. — Agent Smith

What's the problem? Are you saying that there is no fact of the matter about whether doing X to Rachel will harm her or not? Or are you just saying that sometimes it'll be hard to tell?

Either way there is no problem for my condition. If there is no fact of the matter about it - an absurd proposition, for of course there is - then c still applies and so too if you are just saying that it'll sometimes be hard to tell. You haven't done anything to show c to be false by simply pointing out that sometimes it won't be easy to tell if c is satisfied.

No, I don't know what you mean. How is what you're saying not covered by my conditions a-d?

If X is true for everything within the universe, then X is also true for the universe itself. — Magnus

You're attacking a straw man. You have outlined his argument and then you have proceeded to attack a premise not present in it.

His argument requires that the universe actually has a beginning. He does not make the stronger claim that it 'has' to have a beginning.

But anyway, if every material object has come into being and by 'the universe' we just mean the sum total of all currently existing material objects, then the universe has come into being. How does that not follow?

How do we consent? — Agent Smith

How is that relevant to the OP?

In the OP I outlined what I took - and still take - to be a set of conditions on when hypothetical consent might count for something. I argued that the fact Rachel would have consented to have X done to her only counts for something, ethically speaking, when:


a) the hypothetical consent is informed and not a product of ignorance;
b) the actual informed consent is not practically possible;
c) when not doing X to Rachel would either result in her being harmed, or deprived of a significant benefit;
and d) when the hypothetical consent can be considered to be present prior to the performance of the act.

I defended each condition. I would only add to it that b should include 'not normatively possible' too, as sometimes getting someone's actual consent may be something we have powerful normative reason not to do. And c should include 'undeserved' harm and 'deprived of a significant benefit that she did not positively deserve not to receive'.

You've nothing to contribute, Hilary.

Simultaneous causation doesn't make any sense either. — Philosophim

Question begging.

You now want me to give you reason to care? Something most think impossible has been demonstrated to be possible.
You don't care.
Ok. Fine. You clearly do not have an inquiring mind. That's fine. Go beat a panel or put up a shelf or breed or something.

What more is there to say? It can happen. — Hillary

So you agree with my conclusion in the OP? Good. That means you have nothing to say. So stop saying things.

Like I said, in the imagination everything can happen. Nothing....FLASH...something. Not so difficult. What point you want to make? X can appear where there was no X before. So? — Hillary

Relevance?

Read the OP. Try and understand the argument. You will fail. But if or when you succeed, try and address it.

Er, what?

OP. Read it. Address it.

Can something cause its own existence? No. — Philosophim

Oh, okay then. Brilliant. Don't bother addressing the argument in the OP. Just say stuff and it'll be true.

Unless X has an Y preceding it it can't come into existence because you can imagine it. — Hillary

Just obviously question begging. Read the op and address the argument.

Quite a lot of words for someone who does not give a shit about this dude's arguments. Needless to say, I did not waste any time reading them. I win.

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.

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.

Sunday afternoon philosopher

T2.

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.

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?

So?

Obviously God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift. An omnipotent person can do anything, thus he can do that.

You seem to think that if someone is able to do something, then they've done it or that their doing it must leave them unaffected. Quite why you'd think such things I do not know.

Can a bachelor get married? Yes. They won't be a bachelor afterwards, but they have the ability to marry.

Can an omnipotent being create a rock too heavy for him to lift? Yes. They won't be omnipotent afterwards. But so what?

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.

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.

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.

no in between.

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

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

Why are you crying with laughter?

If p, then q.
If q, then t
Therefore, if p then t
P
Therefore t.

There - wet your pants.

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.

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'.

Because reasons - that is, reasons to do things and to believe things - are favoring relations. Only a mind can be the source of a favoring relation. And in the case of reasons, they all have the same source: Reason. Thus, it follows that Reason is a mind.

That mind will be omnipotent, because Reason's attitudes constitutively determine what's possible (all the laws of logic are prescriptions of Reason). Thus for her all things are possible as she is not bound by her own prescriptions.

That mind will be omniscient because Reason's attitudes constitutively determine whether a belief qualifies as an item of knowledge.

That mind will be omnibenevolent because Reason's attitudes constitutively determine what's good and bad. Reason will have a pro-attitude towards her own character, given she could change it if she in any way disapproved of it. Thus Reason will be good.

That mind will qualify as God, then (as possession of those properties is sufficient to qualify). If reasons exist, Reason exists. Reason is God. Therefore, if reasons exist then God exists.

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.

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.

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).