Kalaam Cosmological Argument

[stevencarrwork]

Can a causeless cause begin to exist?

Our free will decisions begin to exist. Do they have a cause?

If that cause began to exist , would it also need a cause?

And would the cause of that cause also need a cause, if it began to exist?

[Captain Ochre]

03-13-2003 @ 04:59 PM
stevencarrwork:

Can a causeless cause begin to exist?


Maybe.


Our free will decisions begin to exist. Do they have a cause?


Sure. Why not?


If that cause began to exist , would it also need a cause?


Probably, but maybe not necessarily.


And would the cause of that cause also need a cause, if it began to exist?

Refer to the question you started with, which dealt with causeless things. Causeless things don't require a cause. Maybe you meant to ask whether or not the cause of that cause began to exist?

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 05:19 PM
Captain Ochre:



Refer to the question you started with, which dealt with causeless things. Causeless things don't require a cause. Maybe you meant to ask whether or not the cause of that cause began to exist?

Thanks for the correction. That is what I meant to write. (Always nice when somebody can help me work out what I am talking about)

If it did not begin to exist though, that makes the cause of our free will decisions eternal, and any cause of that cause must also be eternal.

[Captain Ochre]

03-13-2003 @ 05:58 PM
stevencarrwork:



Thanks for the correction. That is what I meant to write. (Always nice when somebody can help me work out what I am talking about)

If it did not begin to exist though, that makes the cause of our free will decisions eternal, and any cause of that cause must also be eternal.

Hmmm? If "it" (the cause of the cause of our free will decisions) did not begin to exist, that makes the cause of our free will decisions eternal? That doesn't follow.
Only if "it" is the cause of our free will decisions does that make the cause of our free will decisions eternal.
Did I misunderstand you?

"Any cause of that (eternal, uncaused?) cause must also be eternal" (parenthetical, italicized portion added)?
Again, uncaused causes do not themselves have causes.

Hopefully I'm completely misinterpreting what you wrote.
:smile:

Perhaps if you would provide a hint as to the conclusion you're trying to readh, I'll be able to trace your steps a bit better.

[Pate]

The free will decisions have our minds as their causes. Our minds have begun to exist. If we assume that free will is fundamentally materialistic, emergent property of brain etc, then its cause is the presence of sufficient neurological complexity or something like that. If the human mind includes an immaterial substance that could be called "soul", then it might be argued that it's created by God. Either way, there's no such cause involved, which has a beginning but no cause.

[mattbballman19]

03-13-2003 @ 11:59 AM
stevencarrwork:
Can a causeless cause begin to exist?

I don't see how. If the very nature of something to begin to exist/subsist would be to transpire as an effect (assuming the trueness of the first premise 'Whatever begins to exist has a cause'), then the concept of a causeless cause beginning to exist seems incoherent at best and contradictory at worst.


Our free will decisions begin to exist. Do they have a cause?

(i) Yes.
(ii) Yes, these decisions are caused by the 'self'. Norman Geisler makes a good point in his book, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, when he says, "All human behavior is either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by something else. But human behavior can be self-caused, since there is nothing contradictory about a self-caused action (as there is about a self-caused being). For an action does not have to be prior to itself to be caused by oneself. Only the self (I) must be prior to the action. A self-caused action is simply one caused by my self. And my self (I) is prior to my actions."


If that cause began to exist , would it also need a cause?

Sure. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause.

And would the cause of that cause also need a cause, if it began to exist?

Sure. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause. That's the first premise in the argument (at least the one advocated by William Lane Craig). If you're already familiar with the literature, we can skip the usual objections to that premise and get right down to the nitty-gritty:brow:

matt

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 07:48 PM
Pate:

The free will decisions have our minds as their causes. Our minds have begun to exist.
If the human mind includes an immaterial substance that could be called "soul", then it might be argued that it's created by God. Either way, there's no such cause involved, which has a beginning but no cause.

So our free will decisions are caused by something directly caused by God, if I understand you correctly?

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 08:54 PM
mattbballman19:

(ii) Yes, these decisions are caused by the 'self'. Norman Geisler makes a good point in his book, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, when he says, "All human behavior is either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by something else. But human behavior can be self-caused, since there is nothing contradictory about a self-caused action (as there is about a self-caused being). For an action does not have to be prior to itself to be caused by oneself. Only the self (I) must be prior to the action. A self-caused action is simply one caused by my self. And my self (I) is prior to my actions."





Geisler appears not to understand basic grammar. A self-caused action is one caused by the action itself , and not by something else.

When Geisler says human behaviour is caused by the self,
he is claiming that human behaviour is caused by something else, something which is not the behaviour.

However, it would seem Geisler appears to leave open the possibility that the Universe can be self-caused, as he agrees that self-causation is a possibility.

I should point out that I agree with Geisler that human behaviour is caused by the self (to a large extent, clearly my behaviour is also affected by other things)

But the self was caused by something.

Therefore you have an unbroken chain of cause and effect.

There can be no such thing as a causeless cause , according to the Kalaam (discounting God, if you define that as a causeless cause)

[psychopath]

If we assume that free will is fundamentally materialistic, emergent property of brain etc, then its cause is the presence of sufficient neurological complexity or something like that.

I don't see how the existence of free will is compatible with materialism. Actions are purely determined by the chemical makeup of my brain; if I do A, it's not as though I could have done not-A, because my biochemistry made me do the former and precluded the latter.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 05:44 AM
psychopath:



I don't see how the existence of free will is compatible with materialism. Actions are purely determined by the chemical makeup of my brain; if I do A, it's not as though I could have done not-A, because my biochemistry made me do the former and precluded the latter.

On a materialistic view, your actions are determined by your desires, loves, feelings, emotions, fears etc.

On a supernatural view, your actions could be determined by demons deceiving you.

[psychopath]

On a materialistic view, your actions are determined by your desires, loves, feelings, emotions, fears etc.

But your desires, loves, etc. are nothing more than specific combinations of chemicals in your brain, which came about due to your genes and environmental interactions, which in themselves were caused by forces outside your control, and so on. There is no room for anything "free."

On a supernatural view, your actions could be determined by demons deceiving you.

Speaking from a Christian's point of view, no. A demon could hypothetically attempt to influence or test you, but the decision to act still originates solely in the actor.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 07:02 AM
psychopath:



But your desires, loves, etc. are nothing more than specific combinations of chemicals in your brain, which came about due to your genes and environmental interactions, which in themselves were caused by forces outside your control, and so on. There is no room for anything "free."



Speaking from a Christian's point of view, no. A demon could hypothetically attempt to influence or test you, but the decision to act still originates solely in the actor.


So you think you still have free will if a demon is implanting 'Kill Bush' thoughts in your mind?

As fro your first point, I am not a doctor, but I think they work on a materialistic view of the body.

They also point out the effects of stress, anxiety, relaxation on the body.

So the brain is affected by the mind. It is not just one way.

Getting back to the main point of the thread, do you agreee our free will decisions begin to exist? Do they therefore , according to Kalaam, need a cause? Are our freewill decisions therefore caused by something which exists before they are made? Isn't that determinism?

[Captain Ochre]

03-14-2003 @ 11:27 AM
stevencarrwork:
Getting back to the main point of the thread, do you agreee our free will decisions begin to exist? Do they therefore , according to Kalaam, need a cause? Are our freewill decisions therefore caused by something which exists before they are made? Isn't that determinism?

Yes, it is. It is the type of determinism called "self-determinism".

[Captain Ochre]

03-13-2003 @ 11:28 PM
stevencarrwork:

I should point out that I agree with Geisler that human behaviour is caused by the self (to a large extent, clearly my behaviour is also affected by other things)

But the self was caused by something.

Therefore you have an unbroken chain of cause and effect.


Incorrect, since the self-caused actions of the created beings are not themselves "caused" by the creation of said being.
It's a chain of causation of a sort, but it is a chain of causation that explicitly allows for free will, which is not the cause either with causal determinism or "stochastic" determinism (unless you appeal to the free will of subatomic particles, I guess).


There can be no such thing as a causeless cause , according to the Kalaam (discounting God, if you define that as a causeless cause)

Self-caused actions appear to sufficiently fit the bill to allow free will, afaics.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 03:05 PM
Captain Ochre:



Yes, it is. It is the type of determinism called "self-determinism".

Could you explain what you mean by that? I don't think I've come across it before.

I thought determinism was the idea that events are determined by the state of the Universe. There is no contradiction here with the idea that our actions are determined by ourselves, as we are part of the Universe. It is the same concept.

I have already stated that I (largely) determine my own actions.

As other people have pointed out, our selves are caused by something else.

So isn't there an unbroken chain of cause and effect?

Our free will decisions have a cause, and that cause has a cause.

And an uncaused cause cannot begin to exist (according to Kalaam), so how can there be a break in the chain of cause and effect?

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 03:12 PM
Captain Ochre:



Incorrect, since the self-caused actions of the created beings are not themselves "caused" by the creation of said being.



Self-caused actions appear to sufficiently fit the bill to allow free will, afaics.

So my actions are caused by the state of the universe (which includes myself, of course) - a self which was directly caused by God, and yet you can see a gap.


God caused the cause of my freewill actions, but God's causing the cause of the action, could not in any way be said to cause the action. This sounds really fishy. It is just special pleading.

So if I fire a computer-controlled cruise missile , which chooses a target itself by seeing which target from a range of targets has not yet been hit, I can claim that I did not cause any killings, as the missile caused the explosion itself? The missile is a perfect example of self-determinism. It determined its target itself.

If an uncaused cause cannot begin to exist, according to Kalaam, how can contra-causal freedom begin to exist?

[b488]

steven and co.,
Your self-targeting missile example is curious. The missile was programmed to land on the optimal target based on calculations from a computer designed for that very purpose. The focus should rest entirely on your fictional personna who fired the missile as to whether the action was justified or not based on the given circumstances. The missile (unless not functioning properly and assuming it is not counteracted) will indeed land on some target. The person firing the missle and the one ordering the action bears the burden of responsibility as to whether it was morally justifiable or not.

It seems to me as though the question here 'skips over' the central aspect of the controversy. would it not be better put if the missile were somehow 'equipped' to be able to act counter to the will of the programmer, the missle firer, and the one who gave the order to fire in the first place?

Correct me if im wrong, but this seems to be the area in which this whole controversy turns. (personal agency, self-determination)

Ciao! :thumb:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:48 PM
b488:

steven and co.,
Your self-targeting missile example is curious. The missile was programmed to land on the optimal target based on calculations from a computer designed for that very purpose. The focus should rest entirely on your fictional personna who fired the missile as to whether the action was justified or not based on the given circumstances. The missile (unless not functioning properly and assuming it is not counteracted) will indeed land on some target. The person firing the missle and the one ordering the action bears the burden of responsibility as to whether it was morally justifiable or not.


I agree, but the missile determined its own trajectory itself.

This is precisely what Geisler means by self-determination. It is to him that you should address your question.

[Woman]

Question: Does the use of the term "materialistic" here mean not-supernatural...natural? Or does it mean something else?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 10:23 PM
Woman:

Question: Does the use of the term "materialistic" here mean not-supernatural...natural? Or does it mean something else?

I tend to use materialistic to deny that there are angels, demons, gods, fairies, etc. Other people's usage can vary from mine.

[psychopath]

So you think you still have free will if a demon is implanting 'Kill Bush' thoughts in your mind?

The Christian view, I think, is that demons can influence a person's circumstances, so as to tempt them, if you will. They can't implant thoughts into people's minds. One's free will is unaffected.

As fro your first point, I am not a doctor, but I think they work on a materialistic view of the body.

They also point out the effects of stress, anxiety, relaxation on the body.

So the brain is affected by the mind. It is not just one way.

So where does freedom come into play? Stress and anxiety are chemical states of the brain, caused by one's external enivronment. One doesn't choose to relax; he only does so when his brain is chemically composed to cause him to act in a relaxing way (by sleeping, etc.).

Getting back to the main point of the thread, do you agreee our free will decisions begin to exist?

Yes.

Do they therefore , according to Kalaam, need a cause? Are our freewill decisions therefore caused by something which exists before they are made? Isn't that determinism?

I'm not precisely sure what you mean. Say that I'm in a house that catches fire. I, in turn, decide to get out of it. The fire is what caused me to get out of the house, but it was still a choice on my part. Hypothetically speaking, I still could have chosen to stay inside the house. So the fire would be the cause of my free will decision, but would not take away from the freedom of said decision. Is this what you mean?

[Captain Ochre]

03-14-2003 @ 03:12 PM
stevencarrwork:

Could you explain what you mean by that?


Free will is self-determinism.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/freedom1.html


I don't think I've come across it before.


I would find that surprising of someone who was well-versed on the topic.


I thought determinism was the idea that events are determined by the state of the Universe. There is no contradiction here with the idea that our actions are determined by ourselves, as we are part of the Universe. It is the same concept.


No, it isn't the same concept. You oversimplify, and end up committing a fallacy of ambiguity.


I have already stated that I (largely) determine my own actions.


As other people have pointed out, our selves are caused by something else.

So isn't there an unbroken chain of cause and effect?


No, not at all. Causal determinism has event A causing event B which causes event C (itself an oversimplification but hopefully you get the idea).
Free will, otoh, has event A causing free agent A(1) which (irrespective of the former cause) causes event x, event y, and event z.
With causal determinism, all events lead in a chain to preceding events. With the latter, all events lead in a chain to efficient causes which are not simply the culmination of preceding states of matter.


Our free will decisions have a cause, and that cause has a cause.


Irrelevant. That isn't an unbroken chain unless you deny free will. You can't do that without begging the question.


And an uncaused cause cannot begin to exist (according to Kalaam), so how can there be a break in the chain of cause and effect?

If you're referring to human free agents as "uncaused causes" then I must again remind you that the actions created humans are not uncaused causes.

[Captain Ochre]

03-14-2003 @ 03:25 PM
stevencarrwork:
So my actions are caused by the state of the universe (which includes myself, of course) - a self which was directly caused by God, and yet you can see a gap.


Indeed I do, since free will, by definition, is not fully coerced by preceding states of matter (or the universe, ftm).


God caused the cause of my freewill actions, but God's causing the cause of the action, could not in any way be said to cause the action. This sounds really fishy. It is just special pleading.


It's not fishy at all. God could be said to be the cause of your subsequent actions, just not in terms of a unbroken causal chain if you've got free will. I would think this would be obvious to anybody with a halfway clear idea of what "free will" is.
http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/freewill.htm


So if I fire a computer-controlled cruise missile , which chooses a target itself by seeing which target from a range of targets has not yet been hit, I can claim that I did not cause any killings, as the missile caused the explosion itself? The missile is a perfect example of self-determinism. It determined its target itself.


Unless you just earned yourself a Nobel Prize for some novel programming of the onboard guidance system, your missile no more self-determines its target than a tamagotchi decides when to "speak" to you.


If an uncaused cause cannot begin to exist, according to Kalaam, how can contra-causal freedom begin to exist?

Through the creation of (caused) efficient causes (which cause their own self-caused secondary causes). Conceptually, it's actually rather simple.
http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/phi205/arche.htm
(look near the bottom of the page)

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:24 AM
Captain Ochre:

Free will, otoh, has event A causing free agent A(1) which (irrespective of the former cause) causes event x, event y, and event z.



'Irrespective of the former cause'? So no matter what I do beforehand, my decisions to do good or evil are irrespective of what human nature I was created with by God, or what my thoughts, reasoning, or actions prior to my choosing event x, y and z were.

So I can pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance as much as I want, and my choices will be irrespective of this.

As for defining free will as what a free agent does, this is vey circular.


Today @ 03:24 AM
Captain Ochre:


That isn't an unbroken chain unless you deny free will. You can't do that without begging the question.



If you're referring to human free agents as "uncaused causes" then I must again remind you that the actions created humans are not uncaused causes.

So there is no such thing as uncaused cause, but there is a break in the chain of causes?

If we have a chain of cause and effect, it seems the burden of proof is on you that this is not a normal chain of cause and effect, such as in my example of a self-determined cruise missile, which chooses its target itself.

My cruise missile example was a classic case of what Geisler means by self-determinism. Its path was not determined by me, it was not determined by the target. It determined its path itself.

Therefore, Geisler thinks the missile has free will.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 04:02 AM
Captain Ochre:

Unless you just earned yourself a Nobel Prize for some novel programming of the onboard guidance system, your missile no more self-determines its target than a tamagotchi decides when to "speak" to you.



Are you saying I determined the path of the missile, when I have no influence and no knowledge of what target was hit?

Are you saying the target determined the path of the missile?

No, the computer on the missile determined the path of the missile itself. This is self-determinism.

Today @ 04:02 AM
Captain Ochre:


Through the creation of (caused) efficient causes (which cause their own self-caused secondary causes). Conceptually, it's actually rather simple.


And this is equivication on 'self-caused'. These secondary causes did not cause themselves.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 09:00 AM
stevencarrwork:



'Irrespective of the former cause'? So no matter what I do beforehand, my decisions to do good or evil are irrespective of what human nature I was created with by God, or what my thoughts, reasoning, or actions prior to my choosing event x, y and z were.


Essentially correct, and I must point out that the majority of the supposedly influential "chain of events" (which isn't a causal chain at all) are also presumeably free will actions and themselves not part of a causal chain.
God is responsible for your decision not to flap your wings and fly away; that sort of thing.


So I can pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance as much as I want, and my choices will be irrespective of this.


Are you asking for the Holy Spirit to control you, or to made a good path clear to you?


As for defining free will as what a free agent does, this is vey circular.


I define free will as an uncoerced action. Save your rhetoric and read some of the links I've been providing you.
You give little indication that you have some idea what you're talking about.


So there is no such thing as uncaused cause, but there is a break in the chain of causes?


:sigh:
Yes, there is an uncaused cause, if God exists, and efficient causation breaks the causal chain. I don't think that you know what a causal chain is.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph301/order1.html
(scroll down to "cause and effect")


If we have a chain of cause and effect, it seems the burden of proof is on you that this is not a normal chain of cause and effect, such as in my example of a self-determined cruise missile, which chooses its target itself.


Heh. The burden of proof isn't on you, to show that you have a chain of cause and effect?
If you're reading the links and understanding them, then you would have had at least one of your illusions dispelled by now, imo.


My cruise missile example was a classic case of what Geisler means by self-determinism. Its path was not determined by me, it was not determined by the target. It determined its path itself.

Therefore, Geisler thinks the missile has free will.

What Geisler thinks is immaterial. I'm not Geisler, for example.
http://withchrist.org/ngeisler.htm

The programmer determined what target the missile would choose, via programming. For every "choice" between A and B (or additional options), the programmer decides which option is to be given preference by the missile.
Geisler's view appears compatibilist (determinism plus free will), an antimony at best, imo (as reflected in the link provided).

[Satori]

03-13-2003 @ 04:59 PM
stevencarrwork:
Can a causeless cause begin to exist?

Nobody knows, and anyone who claims to know is fooling themselves.

Our free will decisions begin to exist. Do they have a cause?

Yes, our thoughts are caused by the universe's existence.

If that cause began to exist , would it also need a cause?

It does have a cause, it all started with the universe being born, according to our best evidence of course, no one knows for sure.

And would the cause of that cause also need a cause, if it began to exist?

And this point, to me, the questions become an incoherent tangle.

Basically, what it boils down to is: we simply don't know how the universe came into being. There are plenty of theories, but no one knows with any degree of certainty (even though many people try to convince themselves otherwise). However, I feel the god theory explains nothing, and just postpones the question, passes the buck in other words. It goes something like this:

Q: Did something "start" the universe?
A: Yes, god did.
Q: What started god?
A: God is timeless and always existed (or whatever drivel is going around these days about that)

Hmm.. I smell a rat. The universe has a direct "cause", but somehow god doesn't? If a timeless god can exist, a god with the ability to create universes no less, then why is it so apparently impossible for a timeless "cause" to exist which could create universes?

Basically, the god theory answers nothing, it merely avoids the question it pretends to answer. This whole thing is also built on the presumption that the human mind is even capable of grasping such elusive ideas, and we have no reason to presume it can. We think in terms of 4 dimensions because that is the universe we evolved in, and according to the best theories these dimension are aspects of this universe and do not exist outside of this universe, or before it. Therefore, we may not even be able to conceive of an accurate pre-universe state, much less prove our theories to be accurate in any regard. We simply do NOT know.

In the end we ALL must admit that we just don't know and perhaps cannot ever know. So the only reasonable point of view (imo) is one that is open to any possibility, one that is self-honest enough to admit to our limited knowledge pertaining to the ultimate question.

That is why clinging to one theory and negating all others, as is the mode of "faith" is so very foolish and ultimately self-defeating.

best wishes,

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 09:28 PM
Satori:

Nobody knows, and anyone who claims to know is fooling themselves.


Satori has the only dependable knowledge on the topic. He knows that nobody knows.:bonk:


Yes, our thoughts are caused by the universe's existence.


How does Satori know that our thoughts are caused by the universe's existence?
Maybe because if the thoughts were uncaused then he couldn't know that they had been caused?


It does have a cause, it all started with the universe being born, according to our best evidence of course, no one knows for sure.


The universe is the cause of the universe?


And this point, to me, the questions become an incoherent tangle.

Basically, what it boils down to is: we simply don't know how the universe came into being. There are plenty of theories, but no one knows with any degree of certainty (even though many people try to convince themselves otherwise). However, I feel the god theory explains nothing, and just postpones the question, passes the buck in other words. It goes something like this:

Q: Did something "start" the universe?
A: Yes, god did.
Q: What started god?
A: God is timeless and always existed (or whatever drivel is going around these days about that)

Hmm.. I smell a rat. The universe has a direct "cause", but somehow god doesn't? If a timeless god can exist, a god with the ability to create universes no less, then why is it so apparently impossible for a timeless "cause" to exist which could create universes?


Obviously, it isn't impossible based on the theistic view, since you have described the very scenario which would exist if God had created the universe.
Why should the cause be personal rather than impersonal? Because our universe has features which are probabilistically unlikely in the case of a single existant universe (see fine tuning argument).


Basically, the god theory answers nothing, it merely avoids the question it pretends to answer. This whole thing is also built on the presumption that the human mind is even capable of grasping such elusive ideas, and we have no reason to presume it can.


Hopefully you won't suggest that it's wrong to try . . .


We think in terms of 4 dimensions because that is the universe we evolved in, and according to the best theories these dimension are aspects of this universe and do not exist outside of this universe, or before it. Therefore, we may not even be able to conceive of an accurate pre-universe state, much less prove our theories to be accurate in any regard. We simply do NOT know.


Mathematicians and physicists hypothesize the existence of additional dimensions which are implied based on math. Is it impossible to know whether or not such dimensions exist in reallity? If it is impossible to know, then how do you know that it is impossible to know?


In the end we ALL must admit that we just don't know and perhaps cannot ever know. So the only reasonable point of view (imo) is one that is open to any possibility, one that is self-honest enough to admit to our limited knowledge pertaining to the ultimate question.


Good, then God is timeless and has always existed and you don't have any problem with that.
Right?


That is why clinging to one theory and negating all others, as is the mode of "faith" is so very foolish and ultimately self-defeating.


Is the theory that clinging to one theory is ultimately self-defeating itself a single theory, or is it more than one theory?

[mattbballman19]

03-13-2003 @ 06:28 PM
stevencarrwork:
Geisler appears not to understand basic grammar. A self-caused action is one caused by the action itself , and not by something else.

When Geisler says human behaviour is caused by the self,
he is claiming that human behaviour is caused by something else, something which is not the behaviour.

However, it would seem Geisler appears to leave open the possibility that the Universe can be self-caused, as he agrees that self-causation is a possibility.

I should point out that I agree with Geisler that human behaviour is caused by the self (to a large extent, clearly my behaviour is also affected by other things)

But the self was caused by something.

Therefore you have an unbroken chain of cause and effect.

There can be no such thing as a causeless cause , according to the Kalaam (discounting God, if you define that as a causeless cause)

(i) The term "self-caused" seems to have a bifurcated meaning in grammar. In the first sense, "self-" refers to the person responsible. In the second, it is a reflexive term (e.g., that the objection, action, or person in question is what is being referred to). For example, psychologists speak of bulimia as being a self-caused sickness. This does not mean that bulimia itself is its own cause for that would be to confuse the second sense with the first. And the bulimia example is surely intending to refer to the first sense. I think Geisler is also using the first sense. So the progression of causality is simply:

God --> . . . Person 3 --> Person 2 --> Person 1--> Person 1's behavior

(ii) It is false to say that there is no causeless cause (or acausal cause), and neither does the kalam argument affirm the same. Rather, the kalam only suggests that if the universe belongs to a category of things that begin to exist, then it surely has a cause. It turns out that in order to avoid the infinite regression of causality, the kalam simply denies that there are any actually infinite number of things. But all cosmological arguments agree that there must be some sort of necessary existent to which to thwart the temptation to make causality infinitely regress (either temporally or through hierarchy). Such truths are called logically necessary truths and these never begun to exist -- thus, they may have no cause, but if they do then their cause must be a necessary existent.

matt

[stevencarrwork]

(about cause and effect)

03-18-2003 @ 02:52 PM
Captain Ochre:



Heh. The burden of proof isn't on you, to show that you have a chain of cause and effect?



According to Kalaam, all causes which begin to exist, need a cause. Therefore there cannot be a break in the chain of cause and effect. Kalaam might be false, but if you preach Kalaam , you cannot claim that there is no unbroken chain. All causes must have causes.

03-18-2003 @ 02:52 PM
Captain Ochre:

The programmer determined what target the missile would choose, via programming.


Amazing. Here is somebody who asks me to provide the burden of proof that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect.

He then goes on to claim that a programmer of a smart computer-controlled missile has determined the target of the missile, although the programmer may never even have had the slightest knowledge that the target ever existed, and may have died by the time the missile is fired, for all the difference it would make.

So somebody who asks me to prove that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect, says a possibly dead programmer determines the target of a missile fired by somebody else.

I imagine if Captain Ochre got in a computer-controlled plane, with no pilot, and his fellow passengers said 'I'm not getting in a plane that flies itself', Captain Ochre would tell them not to worry, as if the plane gets into a thunderstorm, the programmer will determine what the plane does, so there is a human in charge after all, and the plane is not flying itself.

The fact that there is a continuos chain of cause and effect does not remove the fact that the plane is flying itself.

Similarly, Captain Ochre's obviously true claim that people determine their own actions does not remove the fact that there can be a continuous chain of cause and effect, which Kalaam insists there is.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:33 AM
stevencarrwork:

(about cause and effect)



According to Kalaam, all causes which begin to exist, need a cause. Therefore there cannot be a break in the chain of cause and effect.


Non sequitur. You don't know what a causal chain is. Seriously.


Kalaam might be false, but if you preach Kalaam , you cannot claim that there is no unbroken chain. All causes must have causes.


Again, you don't know what a causal chain is, and a cause which does not begin to exist requires no cause.



Amazing. Here is somebody who asks me to provide the burden of proof that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect.


If you knew what a causal chain is, you wouldn't find it so amazing. :smile:


He then goes on to claim that a programmer of a smart computer-controlled missile has determined the target of the missile, although the programmer may never even have had the slightest knowledge that the target ever existed, and may have died by the time the missile is fired, for all the difference it would make.


He's exactly right. :smile:
I throw a baseball over a fence. It breaks a window! I didn't break the window, the ball did! I didn't even know that there was a window over there! It's ridiculous to suppose that I could be responsible!
:rofl:
You have no idea what a causal chain is. Why don't you go back and read the links?


So somebody who asks me to prove that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect, says a possibly dead programmer determines the target of a missile fired by somebody else.


That would be an instance of shared causation/responsibility. The person who fired the missile provides the opportunity for the missile to follow its programming.
Say the baseball I threw was designed by Lex Luthor and has a black hole held in stasis. When it strikes a window, the black hole is released from stasis and swallows the Earth ("and those puny Earthlings! Mwuhahaha!"). I'm responsible for triggering the device, Luther is responsible for the subsequent action of the device (via programming).


I imagine if Captain Ochre got in a computer-controlled plane, with no pilot, and his fellow passengers said 'I'm not getting in a plane that flies itself', Captain Ochre would tell them not to worry, as if the plane gets into a thunderstorm, the programmer will determine what the plane does, so there is a human in charge after all, and the plane is not flying itself.


He'd be perfectly correct, except for the fact that the programming might not take thunderstorms into account.
You don't know what a causal chain is. FYI, this hampers your attempts at ridicule.


The fact that there is a continuos chain of cause and effect does not remove the fact that the plane is flying itself.


In terms of efficient causation, it most certainly does. You don't know what a causal chain is, which makes equivocating an effortless exercise for you.


Similarly, Captain Ochre's obviously true claim that people determine their own actions does not remove the fact that there can be a continuous chain of cause and effect, which Kalaam insists there is.

It isn't obviously true that people determine their own actions.
Efficient causation (free will) most certainly does break the chain of causation--you just don't know what a causal chain is.

Read the links. I'm not going to waste time on you if you won't try to learn.

[Kab594]

all existences have a cause although many can be stated as unexplained. therefore all causes have a cause.

our free will judgements have a cause. any judgement man makes has a cause. the cause for a judgement is usually having to do with experiences. and experiences have causes which reaffirms the first statement above saying that all causes have a cause.