An obscure question

[nightbringer]

Is it coherent or logically possible for there to be some entity X which is essentially a causer? - that is to say, an entity for which ceasing to cause just would be for it to cease existing?

If not, why not?

Your feedback will help me with some reflections on free will and other such nastiness.

[Seasanctuary]

Anything actively self-caused.

[nightbringer]

Anything actively self-caused.

Oh yeah, duh. I guess then if it's possible for there to be something that by its own nature causes itself, it is possible for there to be something which by its own nature causes other things (or events)?

[JimL]

Oh yeah, duh. I guess then if it's possible for there to be something that by its own nature causes itself, it is possible for there to be something which by its own nature causes other things (or events)?

I don't think that anything causes itself in the sense that it causes its own existence, self caused merely implies necessary existence.

[shunyadragon]

Oh yeah, duh. I guess then if it's possible for there to be something that by its own nature causes itself, it is possible for there to be something which by its own nature causes other things (or events)?

I do not believe the two are logically linked, nor do I believe it is logically for something to be self-created, either the 'Source' some call God(s) is the eternal and infinite creator, or there are no God(s) and our physical existence is eternal and infinite..

[nightbringer]

I don't think that anything causes itself in the sense that it causes its own existence, self caused merely implies necessary existence.

I see what you're getting at. But that aside, is it impossible for there to exist an entity which by its very nature, causes? (I'm not specifying what this entiy might cause, it could be anything.)

I can't see why not, but it feels a little odd to describe such a being.

[shunyadragon]

I see what you're getting at. But that aside, is it impossible for there to exist an entity which by its very nature, causes? (I'm not specifying what this entiy might cause, it could be anything.)

I can't see why not, but it feels a little odd to describe such a being.

In the Orient it may be called the Tao, but by its nature it is not an entity.

To the atheist it is 'nature.'

[JimL]

I see what you're getting at. But that aside, is it impossible for there to exist an entity which by its very nature, causes? (I'm not specifying what this entiy might cause, it could be anything.)

I can't see why not, but it feels a little odd to describe such a being.

Well, personally speaking that seems to me to be the most logical definition of existence, or rather of necessary existence. Our three dimensional spacetime is a finite example of an entity whose defining nature is that of constant change, or in other words cause and effect, and, if as I suspect, our universe exists as, and is an effect of, a greater eternal and infinite cosmos then that would imply that that eternal and infinite cosmos, or necessary existent, of which our universe is a finite part, is of the same nature of its finite parts, i.e. it is a nature of infinite internal causation, or change.

[ENeGMA]

Anything actively self-caused.

I don't think causation is supposed to be reflexive.

[ENeGMA]

Is it coherent or logically possible for there to be some entity X which is essentially a causer? - that is to say, an entity for which ceasing to cause just would be for it to cease existing?

If not, why not?

Your feedback will help me with some reflections on free will and other such nastiness.

On some views God constantly recreates the universe anew at every instant and typically God is thought to exist necessarily and to have his properties necessarily, meaning that if such a God existed it would necessarily exist.

Although it's debatable whether this God is "essentially" a causer because Christian theology requires that at one point the universe didn't exist.

But if all you're looking for is logical possibility, this shows that, yes, such an idea is logically possible.

I don't know if this will help you when it comes to free will though.

[JimL]

I see what you're getting at. But that aside, is it impossible for there to exist an entity which by its very nature, causes? (I'm not specifying what this entiy might cause, it could be anything.)

I can't see why not, but it feels a little odd to describe such a being.

No, it isn't impossible at all, if the universe is eternal, then it is an entity which by its very nature causes, what it causes would be nothing other than the changing forms within itself, and it wouldn't be a free cause, but a necessary one. The only difference in this view and the perspective of God as a distinct causer or creator is that in the former all the effects are one with that of which they are made.

[shunyadragon]

On some views God constantly recreates the universe anew at every instant and typically God is thought to exist necessarily and to have his properties necessarily, meaning that if such a God existed it would necessarily exist.

Although it's debatable whether this God is "essentially" a causer because Christian theology requires that at one point the universe didn't exist.

But if all you're looking for is logical possibility, this shows that, yes, such an idea is logically possible.

I don't know if this will help you when it comes to free will though.

It is true that an infinite and eternal physical existence is a stumbling block for traditional theists, but I do not believe it is a necessary problem. The universe itself may or may not have a beginning depending on whether it is cyclic or not , but at present our knowledge considers a cyclic universe unlikely. Possible multi verses of some sort is the most likely possibility.

Some sort of infinite existence could be eternal and infinite with the Creator is not illogical, even Biblically in Genesis some things existed prior to the Creation of our universe.

Stumbling blocks like this are what keep traditional theists stuck in the past in science and philosophy, and part of the reason they avoid these disiplines in higher academics.