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 fe...
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 - ...
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 th...
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 h...
You know something exists when you believe it exists, it does exist, and you have epistemic reason to believe it exists. And we can know that God exis...
No he didn't. Try and do some philosophy - try engaging with an argument rather than just asking unbelievably dumb questions the answers you which you...
What? Why are you mentioning Jesus? I don't know. God could make himself into a cat if he wanted. My point is a philosophical one. An omnipotent being...
No. I am referring to omnipotence. An omnipotent person could make themselves into a physical thing if they wished to. Why? Because they can do anythi...
I can't follow what you're saying. I believe in God. That is, I believe there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent person. Those are th...
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 lite...
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 ...
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 di...
I agree that naturalism is incompatible with free will, at least of the kind required to make us morally responsible agents. Most of the debate over f...
I haven't mentioned God once in this thread so it is not clear to me why you are doing so. I think it is fair to say that most theists and atheists al...
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). Once...
Yes it is self-creation as normally understood. It is an act of causing something to exist that did not exist before. How is it not? In a case of self...
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...
The only reason to say what you've just said is the mistaken view that causes precede their effects. If a cause can be simultaneous with its effect, t...
You're just confused. You think that contingent things have always 'come into being'. That's just false. There's nothing in the idea of an object exis...
Why? If an object exists at a time, what prevents it from existing at all times? Explain. And I have explained to you numerous times why this is false...
Er, no, they would be existent as cause and existent as effect. You've just made the 'the cause would need to precede the effect' objection - the very...
There is nothing incoherent in the thought experiment. Everyone must admit that it is possible for something always to have been the case. And thus it...
No, you're just plain wrong. Things are more basic than events as, like I say, there can clearly be things without events, but there can't be events w...
You just don't understand the argument. The only reason to think self-creation is impossible is the idea that to create one's self one would have to e...
There is no temporal preceding. Again, you're just adjusting the example so that it no longer illustrates the point it was designed to illustrate. Onc...
The ball does not come to be on the cushion. It is on the cushion from the beginning. It's causing the dent in the cushion. You are just changing the ...
What on earth are you on about? If a cushion exists eternally it is not soft? What? That's not what I said. Again: there aren't actual infinities in r...
Again, you're not engaging with my arguments. I don't know what you mean by a 'mechanism'. I'm assuming you mean that there needs to be some kind of i...
I still don't know what you mean. And anyway, you're missing the point. All you're doing is introducing an intermediary. Now, consider teh questions I...
I don't know what you mean by a mechanism. If A causes B, when does it do it? If you imagine the causation itself to be a third event - a kind of inte...
I don't know what you're talking about. You can come up with any number of cases in which there does 'not' seem to be causation. What's the point in t...
When a substance causes an event, the event and the causation occur at the same time. The event's being caused is its standing in a causal relation to...
Er, no. You are clearly ignorant of the debate over causation and the debate over free will. Substance causation is a term of common use in philosophy...
Do keep up, Gregory. I am arguing that simultaneous causation is coherent. And that's what Kant's ball example shows. As you seem extremely confused a...
That's flagrantly question begging. Imagine you come across a ball on a cushion. Now, if asked what is causing the dent in the cushion, you're going t...
No, it is a thought experiment. And our reason is clear about it: the ball is causing the depression on the cushion even if the ball and cushion have ...
You clearly don't really understand what substance causation is. Substance causation involves a substance - an object - causing an event. Not - not - ...
Comments