Home

Your examples fail, since before the man sat down, there was no lap, and before the log was submerged, water was not displaced. There's ALWAYS an antecedent.

As I see it Craig has gone off track somehow; he is arguing the wrong thing. I have no problem with the idea of simultaneous causation – if you want to use the word 'cause'[ation] in that way. E.g. a lap is caused simultaneous to when you sit down or a log is aubmerged simultaneously to it displacing water. (Though this last one in particular is dubious; the displacement of water is not instantaneous)

HOWEVER there is a problem with using the word 'cause' in this way. It is simply not the way that we usually use the word. I'll use an example:

A person bowls a bowling ball at one pin.

Now, did the ball striking the pin cause the pin to fall over? I'd say yes. Did the ball strike the pin and did the pin start to fall at the same time? I'd say yes. Did the person bowling the ball cause the pin to fall over? I'd say yes.

There seems to be two types of 'cause' here. One simultaneous, and one prior/temporal. We have come to know our world well and we know that 'simultaneous causation' happens, and we also know that temporal causation happens. We also observe that for every simultaneous cause there is always a temporal cause also. Before the log-displacement, the log was out of the water; before the sitting-lap, there was a thought.

Although we could split the word cause up into 'simultaneous' and 'temporal', in reality there is only one type of cause: The type before which there was necessarily a time. The type for which there was a temporal cause.

To conclude that there is an event which did not involve a temporal cause is bad science. To conclude that there was a time before which there was no time is also bad science.

Hello Joe,

On the contrary, both of my examples are of similtaneous causation. Where I think your thinking has gone wrong is failing to distinguish between the material and the efficient cause.

Explanation:

The effecient cause is the cause which produces the effect. So the effecient cause of a statue is the sculptor or artisan. Whereas the material cause for the statue is the stone of which it is composed.

Now the material cause of the water displacement is the log, and that certainly did have a state of being prior to the effect, but only as a pitentiality. The efficient cause of the water displacement is the submerged log, and this cause was not operative prior to the effect, but similtaeously with.

The same is true for the eternally standing man and the creation of his lap. The material cause of the lap is the man himself – his legs to be precise. The efficient cause of the lap is the man sitting, and it's this cause that occurs at the same moment as the effect.

So both my examples have analogue.

@OriginalSimon,

To be fair, simultaneous causation is an established philosophical concept. My guess would be that Craig, being a philosopher, is employing it in such a technical manner.

TheCraftMan,

Oh, yes, I'm sure simultaneous causation is a well defined concept. But it never exists without prior temporal causation – this is an empirical fact. So it is invalid to invoke it.

Other Simon,

Do you really mean "prior temporal causation?" Because that's exactly what simultaneous causation exemplifies – a cause coincidental with it's effect. Perhaps you mean "there has never been observed an example of similtaneous causation without a prior temporal state of affairs?"

the "simultaneous causation" is rooted WITHIN time. Before the log was placed in the water, water was not displaced. Before the man sat down, there was no "lap".

Joe,

I like the brevity, but it doesn't really communicate that you're really engaging the topic. The confusion engendered by your last comment above seems to a result of that brevity.

(1) Not sure if your granting there is such a thing as simultaneous causation, or if your use of inverted commas indicates a lingering skepticism on your part. (2) I agree that each example happened within time. Not sure again why such a consideration need bother the proponent of simultaneous causation.

In either case, I've already answered what I think your misunderstanding is on this point. See comment: # 8 June 2010 at 8:20 pm

didn't see your other reply.

On the contrary, both of my examples are of similtaneous causation. Where I think your thinking has gone wrong is failing to distinguish between the material and the efficient cause.

Actually, you've failed to note you have no evidence of an efficient cause that is independent of a material cause.

Explanation:

The efficient cause is the cause which produces the effect. So the efficient cause of a statue is the sculptor or artisan. Whereas the material cause for the statue is the stone of which it is composed.

All that the sculptor is is changing the shape of the original material to a certain shape.

Now the material cause of the water displacement is the log, and that certainly did have a state of being prior to the effect, but only as a potentiality. The efficient cause of the water displacement is the submerged log, and this cause was not operative prior to the effect, but similtaeously with.

Once the log is placed in the water, the simultaneous cause takes place. However, this too is located within time, since BEFORE the log is placed, no such "causes" exist.

The same is true for the eternally standing man and the creation of his lap. The material cause of the lap is the man himself – his legs to be precise. The efficient cause of the lap is the man sitting, and it’s this cause that occurs at the same moment as the effect.

And before he sits down, there is a moment where his lap does not exist.

(1) Not sure if your granting there is such a thing as simultaneous causation, or if your use of inverted commas indicates a lingering skepticism on your part.

I'm pointing out your examples do not do help your case since your examples of "simultaneous causation" still require a previous antecedent of the log not being in the water and the man standing.

(2) I agree that each example happened within time. Not sure again why such a consideration need bother the proponent of simultaneous causation.

Because it doesn't help your case at all with regards to your defense of the KCA, which is the absurdity of a "timeless cause". The cause effect may itself be simultaneous, but that's irrelevant because BEFORE the effect has taken place, there must have been a point previously where it had not.

“there has never been observed an example of similtaneous causation without a prior temporal state of affairs?”

Yes. Again, simultaneous causation does not occur without prior temporal causation. Or, all simultaneous causation is preceded by temporal causation.

Stuart,

p.s. I think 6.38pm was Joe trying to explain to you 4.44pm

(Also, what does the '#9' mean in "# 9 June 2010 at 7:40 pm")

Original Simon,

(Also, what does the ‘#9? mean in “# 9 June 2010 at 7:40 pm”)

Perhaps it means it the 9th of June.

Original Simon,

Stuart [asking Other Simon if this is what he actually meant]: “there has never been observed an example of similtaneous causation without a prior temporal state of affairs?”

Other Simon: Yes. Again, simultaneous causation does not occur without prior temporal causation. Or, all simultaneous causation is preceded by temporal causation.

Simon, these are not equivalent statements. Neither yours to mine, nor your first to your second sentence.

Simultaneous causation does not require "Prior temporal causation." Rather, I think what you want to say is all observed examples of simultaneous causation have prior temporal states of affairs.

Joe,

The cause effect may itself be simultaneous, but that’s irrelevant because BEFORE the effect has taken place, there must have been a point previously where it had not.

When speaking of the absolute origin of the universe there was no before, or point temporally prior where there was no effect. Yet, if there is such a thing as simultaneous causation, then we can coherently speak of the universe having a cause.

When speaking of the absolute origin of the universe there was no before, or point temporally prior where there was no effect.

Of course, this is assuming there WAS an absolute origin. I know you'll trot out your usual BVG and such, but again, it's simply one model based on the incomplete inflationary model out of many. You admit there are other models which does away with the BVG's conclusions.

Yet, if there is such a thing as simultaneous causation, then we can coherently speak of the universe having a cause.

Actually, this is wrong. A simultaneous causation is simply when the cause and effect are simultanenous. However, there STILL must be a moment prior to which the effect has taken place to which there is a point where it had not taken place.

TheCraftMan,
Stuart,

This commits the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

So the alien-denier is commiting a logical fallacy when they point out that there is no evidence of aliens? Please. If you had any evidence for your claims you would present it rather than wasting your breath as you do above.
My claim stands: I have explained how every example of simultaneous causation in this thread has a temporal antecedent. Until you can come up with a counter-example, simultaneous causation sans temporal causation is an invalid inference

Joe

Of course, this is assuming there WAS an absolute origin

Yes. A fair reminder. Please don't jump off topic.

[the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorum] it’s simply one model based on the incomplete inflationary model out of many.

Its not a model. Its a proof or confirmation of an aspect of a particular model.

However, there STILL must be a moment prior to which the effect has taken place to which there is a point where it had not taken place.

This is simply unnecessary. If the log was submerged from eternity, the water displacement would still be caused simultaneously. That means there would be no time prior where there was no effect.

Joe,

You are a naysayer. The following is evidence.

I’m contesting the claim there IS a first cause, and/or that if there is, that it’s god.

The thing is, you need more than just asserting the contradictory to be rational (or intellectually respectable). You also need to stay on topic. I’ve been lax in the past, but you’re just rehashing trodden ground. Yes we disagree. Yes, we both think the other has profoundly misunderstood the state of current cosmogonical thought. This article operates on the assumption that the objector believes the universe was not eternal. Get over it. It does this in order to address a particular objection leveled against the conclusion of the KCA.

Reminder: Bad language will not be tolerated here. First warning, there will be no second.

Yes. A fair reminder. Please don’t jump off topic.

I'm not.

[the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorum] it’s simply one model based on the incomplete inflationary model out of many.

Its not a model. Its a proof or confirmation of an aspect of a particular model.

Er, what? it's at best a speculation based on an incomplete inflationary model.

However, there STILL must be a moment prior to which the effect has taken place to which there is a point where it had not taken place.

This is simply unnecessary. If the log was submerged from eternity, the water displacement would still be caused simultaneously.

that means it was always there.

That means there would be no time prior where there was no effect.

if it's there for an eternity, there's no displacement. And also, say you're right. This analogy makes god unnecessary. The universe was always there in some form, seeing as the rigorous definition of universe is "all that exists". THIS local universe? It "began" 14 billion years ago from, at least according to the "classical" BBT, a singularity.

Other Simon,

So the alien-denier is commiting a logical fallacy when they point out that there is no evidence of aliens?

Not necessarily. Here is how he could be committing the logical fallacy. “There is no evidence of aliens. Therefore, aliens do not exist.”

I have explained how every example of simultaneous causation in this thread has a temporal antecedent. Until you can come up with a counter-example, simultaneous causation sans temporal causation is an invalid inference

I freely admit that I can’t come up with an example of simultaneous causation without an antecedent temporal state of affairs (other than the beginning of the universe in the initial singularity). The universe is not, after-all, eternal. But why think a cause simultaneous to its effect requires one?

Why do you slide from plain old “temporal antecedent” to “temporal causation” (whatever that is?).

No it wouldn’t be an invalid inference, for theres no reason to think that simultaneous causation requires a temporal antecedent where the effect does not obtain. All the conditions sufficient for the effect are present simultaneously to the cause. That is why simultaneous causation is efficient (produces the effect).

Joe,

Insofar as the topic is addressing a particularlar objection to the KCA – that being a cause for the beginning of the universe is incoherent – you would be jumping off topic by addressing another objection to the KCA – that being the beginning of the universe.

if it's [the submerged log] there for an eternity, there's no displacement

Really? That's very odd way of looking at it. How would you explain the drop in the water level if it were ever drawn out? No displacement of water sensibly means no log.

This analogy makes god unnecessary.

Don't be ridiculous. The analogy was to explain that a prior temporal state where the effect does not obtain is not required for simultaneous causation. Effects still need causes.

seeing as the rigorous definition of universe is "all that exists".

That definition assumes naturalism.

Insofar as the topic is addressing a particularlar objection to the KCA – that being a cause for the beginning of the universe is incoherent – you would be jumping off topic by addressing another objection to the KCA – that being the beginning of the universe.

If you don't want me to make an objection to your unfounded assertion, don't make it.

if it’s [the submerged log] there for an eternity, there’s no displacement

Really? That’s very odd way of looking at it. How would you explain the drop in the water level if it were ever drawn out? No displacement of water sensibly means no log.

once it's drawn out, its absence would be causing the water to fill the previous inhabited spot.

Don’t be ridiculous. The analogy was to explain that a prior temporal state where the effect does not obtain is not required for simultaneous causation. Effects still need causes.

This is only true for your shifting goalpost analogy that the water the log was now always there, from your example of the log "causing" the water to be displaced, which is simultaneous. Also, how is this even relevant to a causation of creation? If it was always existing, then how can you say it was created?

That definition assumes naturalism.

Let's see- things that have been successfully explained by naturalism: too many to count.

Things that have been successfully explained by supernatural: zip.

@OtherSimon,

If you had any evidence for your claims you would present it rather than wasting your breath as you do above.

Likewise.

@Joe,

In fact, I’m genuinely irritated at you, “Craftman”. All you’re doing is “well I’m not going to deal with you because you’re dumb!” and other moronic playground tactics you just spew up here… because it makes you feel like the “right” man.

It’s not about winning or losing to me. I don’t need to “feel right.” My ego is not wrapped up into our exchanges on here.

What do you want me to provide evidence of?

Your perspective?

@Stuart,

It's useless to continue with Joe. He lives in a fairy tale world.

It’s useless to continue with Joe. He lives in a fairy tale world.

Really? I'm the one who believes that a "personal, self-existent, omnipotent, infinite, timeless, perfect and unchanging" being who created the universe for a small group within the "living" portion of the universe (wonder how small that is, exactly) will get angry for masturbating? How can a personal, intelligent, timeless being who is perfect exist in any way? Intelligence requires change, btw.

Simultaneous causation does not require “Prior temporal causation.” Rather, I think what you want to say is all observed examples of simultaneous causation have prior temporal states of affairs.

No, simultaneous causation does require prior temporal causation. Why? Because there are no examples of simultaneous causation without prior temporal causation.

Unless you can come up with some. But I think you'll find it impossible.

@OriginalSimon,

No, simultaneous causation does require prior temporal causation. Why? Because there are no examples of simultaneous causation without prior temporal causation. Unless you can come up with some. But I think you’ll find it impossible.

This commits the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

Joe,

once it’s [the submerged log] drawn out, its absence would be causing the water to fill the previous inhabited spot.<.blockquote>

A strange example, but another example nonetheless of simultaneous causation. Cause A (absence of a submerged log), and Effect B (no displacement of water) are simultaneous. You are still confused on the distinction between the material and efficient cause. The material cause exists prior and coincidentally with the effect. The efficient cause only coincidentally with the effect.

This is only true for your shifting goalpost analogy that the water the log was now always there, from your example of the log “causing” the water to be displaced, which is simultaneous. Also, how is this even relevant to a causation of creation? If it was always existing, then how can you say it was created?

Joe. Analogies are used to explain one thing by finding a similarity with another. They need not have perfect correspondence in every aspect. They need only have one area of correspondence to be useful. Thus the example of an eternally submerged log need not be relevant to the causation of the universe. Indeed I think there is nothing that is eternal apart from God himself (and maybe his thoughts).

My original analogy was of a log in the water. It said nothing of how long the log had been there. It was you that changed the analogy to the log moving into the water. Then I understood your confusion – the distinction between the material and efficient cause – and addressed it in the third comment above. That I use the same submerged-log analogy to illustrate how your objection – that for simultaneous causes and effects there must be a prior temporal state where the effect did not obtain – is in error, is not at all shifting the goal posts; it is elaborating on an analogy to explain a different point.

A strange example, but another example nonetheless of simultaneous causation. Cause A (absence of a submerged log), and Effect B (no displacement of water) are simultaneous.

So? Before the cause there's a point where effect B had not taken place. Now if you want to say it was "always in there" that's a completely different issue. If it was "always in there", that means it's just causing and effecting for the whole time.

You are still confused on the distinction between the material and efficient cause. The material cause exists prior and coincidentally with the effect. The efficient cause only coincidentally with the effect.

I'm not confused, but pointing out the intentional obfuscation this "materia/efficient cause" is all about. All our evidence shows

This is only true for your shifting goalpost analogy that the water the log was now always there, from your example of the log “causing” the water to be displaced, which is simultaneous. Also, how is this even relevant to a causation of creation? If it was always existing, then how can you say it was created?

Joe. Analogies are used to explain one thing by finding a similarity with another. They need not have perfect correspondence in every aspect.

That's precisely the point. It doesn't correspond at all, since one is of creation, which by definition is bringing about something anew, and hence REQUIRING an antecedent which it did not exist, while your submerged log isn't like that AT ALL.

They need only have one area of correspondence to be useful. Thus the example of an eternally submerged log need not be relevant to the causation of the universe. Indeed I think there is nothing that is eternal apart from God himself (and maybe his thoughts).

Energy. According to the first law, it can't be created or destroyed. I don't think it unreasonable to claim this is an alternative that is in fact a better candidate as occam's razor suggests.

The CraftMan,

Thanks for the advise. I know I should follow it but its difficult to let sloppy thinking stand. Good thinking pointing out the Argument from Ignorance. He as well is confused like Joe on the distinction between the material and effectual cause. I think you'll find a pernicious circularity in Other Simon's argument as well. See the following;

Defender: The KCA concludes the universe was caused.

Objector: No, You can't say the universe was caused because it's incoherent – there can be no cause if there is no prior temporal state where the effect did not obtain.

Defender: No, there is simultaneous causation which does not require a prior temporal state in order to cause an effect.

Objector: There is no example of simultaneous causation without a prior temporal state.

Ergo Begging the Question.

Defender: No, there is simultaneous causation which does not require a prior temporal state in order to cause an effect.

How is this even a defense? How is this "defense" even coherent? Because the cause and effect are simultaneous there needs no temporal event? The cause and effect itself maybe simultaneous, but in order for there to BE an effect, there must be an antecedent in which the effect has not taken place.

Defender: No, there is simultaneous causation which does not require a prior temporal state in order to cause an effect.

Objector: There is no example of simultaneous causation without a prior temporal state.

Ergo Begging the Question.

Who's begging the question? You? Because it's true. You're making a bare assertion and you know it.

I’m not confused, but pointing out the intentional obfuscation this “materia/efficient cause” is all about. All our evidence shows [sic]

Mad ravings.

Energy [as candidate for being eternal]. According to the first law, it can’t be created or destroyed. [appeal to Ocam's razor for best explanation]

Only the universe is by definition all matter, all space, all time and all energy, and according to the second premise of the KCA, is not eternal but had a beginning in the finite past. But this is a digression, for that premise is not under discussion here.

No one thinks the the laws of thermodynamics apply to the beginning of the universe. So appealing to them is disingenuous.

The cause and effect itself maybe simultaneous, but in order for there to BE an effect, there must be an antecedent in which the effect has not taken place.

In the case of the universe beginning from a singularity, there is no temporal antecedent to speak of. When we speak of the first cause, it is in terms of logical priority rather than temporal priority.

Who's begging the question? You? Because it's true. You're making a bare assertion and you know it.

A bare assertion is not an example of begging the question. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy and occurs when you reason in a circle as per the example given.

Please note Joe: The point of this is not to show that there was a cause for the universe beginning to exist, or that this was an example of simultaneous causation. The point is to show that it is not incoherent to think it was, and thus rebut the objections of those such as Grünbaum.

Mad ravings.

"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure. "In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist. (Zephaniah 2:12-15 NLT)

Only the universe is by definition all matter, all space, all time and all energy, and according to the second premise of the KCA, is not eternal but had a beginning in the finite past. But this is a digression, for that premise is not under discussion here.

So why bring it up? Again, why assert this to be true without evidence? All you have is the BVG saying that the current inflationary theory is not past-complete.

No one thinks the the laws of thermodynamics apply to the beginning of the universe. So appealing to them is disingenuous.

Nobody thinks time began at the big bang either.

The cause and effect itself maybe simultaneous, but in order for there to BE an effect, there must be an antecedent in which the effect has not taken place.

In the case of the universe beginning from a singularity, there is no temporal antecedent to speak of.

There you go asserting this again, when there's no evidence suggesting such.

“So far, it’s been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it’s an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while” – Alan Guth

When we speak of the first cause, it is in terms of logical priority rather than temporal priority.

I'm contesting the claim there IS a first cause, and/or that if there is, that it's god.

A bare assertion is not an example of begging the question. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy and occurs when you reason in a circle as per the example given.

A bare assertion IS question begging since you're asserting something without evidence. I'm simply reasoning along the lines of what evidence there is.

Please note Joe: The point of this is not to show that there was a cause for the universe beginning to exist, or that this was an example of simultaneous causation. The point is to show that it is not incoherent to think it was, and thus rebut the objections of those such as Grünbaum.

Your example of "simultaneous causation" doesn't show that an antecedent isn't necessary wasn't even suggested until you shifted the goalpost to say that "in a case of simultanous causation where there is no antecedent cause, ie it was always submerged"… in which case I contest your case a. it's not even a valid analogy given an act of creation is bringing something anew, thus REQUIRING an antecedent in which it did not exist.

@Joe,

You continue asserting contrapositions without providing any kind of support. Again, again, and again. I really don't know how Stuart continues to tolerate it. You have no interest in genuine discussion. (That's why I don't even bother trying with you.) You remind me of the kooky independent fundamentalist baptist types.

You should get a Gravatar which reads, "Have dogma. Will impose it."

You continue asserting contrapositions without providing any kind of support.

What the hell? You mean like me citing Alan Guth to refute Stuart's position? What support do you expect?

Again, again, and again. I really don’t know how Stuart continues to tolerate it. You have no interest in genuine discussion. (That’s why I don’t even bother trying with you.) You remind me of the kooky independent fundamentalist baptist types.

You should get a Gravatar which reads, “Have dogma. Will impose it.”

And you continue to just troll and throw cheap insults again and again and again. Either put up or [use of explicit language: edited out].

What do you want me to provide evidence of? That the universe is eternal? Why? I don't know if it is, but to claim that the universe began is equally baseless. What more do you want? Seriously, dude. Drop your use of [explicit language: edited out] behavior and butt out. How christian of you.

In fact, I'm genuinely irritated at you, "Craftman". All you're doing is "well I'm not going to deal with you because you're dumb!" and other moronic playground tactics you just spew up here… because it makes you feel like the "right" man.

Wrong! It is an empirical fact that a prior state of affairs is required.

You confuse inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. Therefore, you fail.

You confuse ad hom and hot air with actual refutation, and you confuse bare assertions and sophistry with legitimate evidenced points. Why should any of use take you seriously?

The thing is, you need more than just asserting the contradictory to be rational (or intellectually respectable). You also need to stay on topic.

This is why you've failed to provide any actual lines of evidence for ANY of your examples? This is why thus far you've failed to provide evidence of an actual creation event, except for your continued assertions that the universe was created ex nihilo? And you're chiding ME for

I’ve been lax in the past, but you’re just rehashing trodden ground. Yes we disagree. Yes, we both think the other has profoundly misunderstood the state of current cosmogonical thought.

I'M not the one profoundly misunderstaning the current understanding of pre-planck cosmology. You are. You continue to assert the universe began- that it was created out of nothing, despite the fact that such thoughts have NOT been established.

This article operates on the assumption that the objector believes the universe was not eternal. Get over it. It does this in order to address a particular objection leveled against the conclusion of the KCA.

Why should I be the one to "get over it"? If you don't want people to pick on it, then stop making the claims. Also, I love how you've admitted to OtherSimon that you've no evidence for your claim regarding "simultaneous causation".

You STILL haven't addressed the issue with regards to simultaneous causation. ONLY when you've explicitly STATED that "there is no temporal antecedent" was your analogy even half-way valid, and not even because it's an example of simultaneous causation, but because of the fact that you've simply taken out a previous moment. In essence you've argued in circles. "in a case of simultaneous causation where there is no previous antecedent, there is no previous antecedent". Well duh.

Also, you don't like bad words? Tell Craftsman to back of and either address my posts (why should I bear the burden of proof when all you've done is assert, assert, assert?) or back off.

Not necessarily. Here is how he could be committing the logical fallacy. “There is no evidence of aliens. Therefore, aliens do not exist.”

Show me where I've said anything like this. My point is that "there are no evidence of god, therefore there's no reason to believe that god exists". in fact, aliens are far more probable than god seeing as all that requires for alien's existence is simply another life-friendly system like ours, while god-claim requires evidence to support the claim of "personal, self-existent, omnipotent, infinite, timeless, perfect and unchanging in all His attributes."

It’s not about winning or losing to me. I don’t need to “feel right.” My ego is not wrapped up into our exchanges on here.

That's why you resort to "i don't need to deal with you neener neener"?

Your perspective?

What, that I don't believe god exists? What- an another pre-planck model? Colliding Branes by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt?

This is why you’ve failed to provide any actual lines of evidence for ANY of your examples? This is why thus far you’ve failed to provide evidence of an actual creation event, except for your continued assertions that the universe was created ex nihilo? And you’re chiding ME for

christ forgot to finish the sentence. Too early in the morning.

The phrase is INTELLECTUAL RIGOR.

Stuart,

Not necessarily. Here is how he could be committing the logical fallacy. “There is no evidence of aliens. Therefore, aliens do not exist.”

Again, these allusions to fallacies are completely useless: You and I both live our lives as though aliens don't exist. We should also live our lives as though simultaneous causation cannot be considered a stand-alone phenomenon.

But why think a cause simultaneous to its effect requires one?

For the same reason that it is sensible to think that gravity affects ALL stars. We have never observed gravity NOT affecting a star, and we have never observed simultaneous causation without a prior state of affairs.

Why do you slide from plain old “temporal antecedent” to “temporal causation” (whatever that is?).

Prior states of affairs always cause later states of affairs. We have learned this of the world around us, too!

No it wouldn’t be an invalid inference, for theres no reason to think that simultaneous causation requires a temporal antecedent

Of course there is a reason to think that all imultaneous causation requires a temporal state of affairs: We have never observed otherwise! Just as we have never observed aliens actually abducting people. Your statement here is as ridiculous as claiming that there is no reason to think that aliens aren't abducting us!

All the conditions sufficient for the effect are present simultaneously to the cause.

Wrong! It is an empirical fact that a prior state of affairs is required.

@OriginalSimon,

Wrong! It is an empirical fact that a prior state of affairs is required.

You confuse inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. Therefore, you fail.

@Joe,

What, that I don’t believe god exists? What- an another pre-planck model? Colliding Branes by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt?

Wow, you completely missed the point. I'm done with you. There is nothing more which you could contribute which actually benefits me. Moving on…

[comment deleted - rude language, not advancing the conversation]

@OriginalSimon,

Allow me to clarify my criticism. You have claimed it is necessary for there to be something prior to an instance of simultaneous causation (e.g., "state of affairs," "temporally prior," etc.). You have presented two lines of reasoning in favor of your claim. First, you have argued that it is necessary because the instances of simultaneous causation presented by Stuart always have a prior. Second, you have argued that your claim stands unless we can produce evidence to the contrary.

The first argument is incomplete. That is, it does not follow from the observed instances that it must always be the case. This is what my comment about inductive/deductive argument is referencing. You are drawing a categorical conclusion based on and inductive inference. Additionally, given the limited amount of examples, it would only provide weak evidence for your claim.

The second argument is fallacious are pointed out before. It commits the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

If we take both arguments together as a bigger argument, then at best you have weak support for the claim. However, again, it's weak support which does not justify the categorical nature of the claim.

Thus, your argument has failed. You have not shown that it is necessary to always have an "antecedent" to a simultaneous causation event.

The best conclusion which can be drawn upon your presented support is that, if we stretch the notion far enough, it may be necessary for a simultaneous causation event to have a prior of some kind.

Simply put, in order for you to say that the the cause EFFECTS something, there MUST be a prior antecedent. In the example of log displacing water (since the eternal past), water is not being "displaced" since water was never there TO BE DISPLACED in the first place.

Other Simon,

stuart:All the conditions sufficient for the effect are present simultaneously to the cause.

Other Simon:Wrong! It is an empirical fact that a prior state of affairs is required.

A prior temporal state of affairs where the effect did not obtain is not a necessary condition for simultaneous causation. This can be shown with the etnernally submerged log that has always produced the effect of water displacement. In that illustration it is easy to see that simultaneous causation can occur without there being a time prior where the effect did not obtain.

Thus, because a prior temporal state of affairs where the effect did not obtain is not a necessary condition of simultaneous causation, there is no problem with concieving the universe's first moment to be an effect simultaneous to it's cause.

Thus, because a prior temporal state of affairs where the effect did not obtain is not a necessary condition of simultaneous causation, there is no problem with concieving the universe’s first moment to be an effect simultaneous to it’s cause.

This is incoherent, since a creation is not the same as "causation" like water displacement is. What is the "cause" and "effect" in the case of the universe? Also, a CREATION EVENT as I've already explained above is bringing about anew, which REQUIRES a previous moment where it did NOT exist. Now, unless you'd like it say it both always existed and was created which is contradictory, you should fix this issue.

Joe,

O, no. The water is there alright. And being displaced. I don't understand how you could think otherwise.

O, no. The water is there alright. And being displaced. I don’t understand how you could think otherwise.

That's your poverty of imagination, not my problem. In order for water to be displaced from something would REQUIRE that the water was there previously. Otherwise, it's simply being fit into the shape its original container.

@Stuart,

A prior temporal state of affairs where the effect did not obtain is not a necessary condition for simultaneous causation.

And the continuous pounding of the desk to "defend" the idea is becoming rather annoying. If they want us to accept their statement as true, which seems evidenced by the continuous reassertion of the idea, then they are going to have to convince us. Yet, to this point, they have provided two reasons why we should accept this idea, and both reasons have been shown to be deficient.

I guess they can also restate their claim. I guess after the 500th time, maybe I'll begin to believe them. Or, they could actually show how my responses as insufficient and/or provide other reasons. Though, I'm not holding my breath on the last option.

And the continuous pounding of the desk to “defend” the idea is becoming rather annoying. If they want us to accept their statement as true, which seems evidenced by the continuous reassertion of the idea, then they are going to have to convince us.

You're a funny man, Crafty. You both admit that all evidence of causality points to a prior antecedent. The best Stu's done is point to a circular argument of "in a simultaneous causation where there's no previous antecedent, there is no previous antecedent". Except this is problematic to begin with, especially since the water's not being "displaced" when it's wasn't there to BE displaced in the first place in his example. Also, you haven't even begun to answer the analogical differences between this and the particular causation that is an ACT OF CREATION, which is TO BRING ANEW. Thus, you're left with the paradox of something that both always existed and was created.

Yet, to this point, they have provided two reasons why we should accept this idea, and both reasons have been shown to be deficient.

LMAO!

I guess they can also restate their claim. I guess after the 500th time, maybe I’ll begin to believe them. Or, they could actually show how my responses as insufficient and/or provide other reasons. Though, I’m not holding my breath on the last option.

I meant it seriously when I said you should just butt out if you don't have anything to actually contribute except more hot air.

Stuart,

A prior temporal state of affairs where the effect did not obtain is not a necessary condition for simultaneous causation. This can be shown with the etnernally submerged log that has always produced the effect of water displacement. In that illustration it is easy to see that simultaneous causation can occur without there being a time prior where the effect did not obtain.

I am quite confused by the italicised bit; the word 'obtain' is completely alien here (to me) Could you put it differently?

But to address how I understand of your argument:

Your first sentence is simply wrong. Empirically. Only a deluded person looks at the entire corpus of known observation – which shows that a prior state of affairs is necessary – and then prefers the imaginary world in their head.

I believe that it is you that claims that actual infinities are impossible. (And, again, this is terrible empiricism. What do we know that has remained the same for infinity?) You need to remove the word "shown" and replace it with "imagined, in order that I be right".

Thus, in the real world, where we make sensible infrences from sensible data around us, there is no such thing as simultaneous causation without a prior temporal state.

Joe,

In order for water to be displaced from something [it] would REQUIRE that the water was there previously

Not at all. In order for water to be displaced, all that is required is for something to create a potentiality such that if it were not there, then the space could be filled.

Also, a CREATION EVENT as I’ve already explained above is bringing about anew, which REQUIRES a previous moment where it did NOT exist.

Thats just repeating your position and the objection addressed in the article which is a psudo-dilemma. The CraftMan is pretty much right.

you haven’t even begun to answer the analogical differences between this and the particular causation that is an ACT OF CREATION, which is TO BRING ANEW.

The log displacing the water from eternity illustrates that a prior moment where the effect does not obtain is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of simultaneous causation. It is not meant to illustrate a creation event. It is meant to defeat your objection to simultaneous causation of the universe.

Not at all. In order for water to be displaced, all that is required is for something to create a potentiality such that if it were not there, then the space could be filled.

That makes no sense. In order for the water to be displaced, it must first inhabit the space which would BE displaced. Or are you saying ALL water is now being displaced? Just because it has the hypothetical "potential" doesn't mean jack.

Also, a CREATION EVENT as I’ve already explained above is bringing about anew, which REQUIRES a previous moment where it did NOT exist.

Thats just repeating your position and the objection addressed in the article which is a psudo-dilemma. The CraftMan is pretty much right.

It's not a pseudo-dilemma but a real issue with your position which you're just trying to evade, and failing. Not only have you failed to even explain what the "cause" and "effect" would be with regards to the universe, you just claim it's "simultanenous", making the whole thing simply incomprehensible. What's the cause? The cause of the universe is simultaneous to the universe itself? The cause of time is simultaneous to time itself? What does that even mean? Either time has always existed, or it "began" at a certain point, which itself is an incoherent notion. Face it, buddy. Even your "simultaneous" example is deeply rooted in time. The only way your "log" example would even work is if it CONTINUES to cause and effect.

you haven’t even begun to answer the analogical differences between this and the particular causation that is an ACT OF CREATION, which is TO BRING ANEW.

The log displacing the water from eternity illustrates that a prior moment where the effect does not obtain is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of simultaneous causation. It is not meant to illustrate a creation event. It is meant to defeat your objection to simultaneous causation of the universe.

Except it doesn't, seeing as the water is no longer strictly being displaced when it was never there TO BE DISPLACED in the first place. Just saying IT COULD FILL THAT SPACE doesn't translate to THEREFORE WATER IS BEING DISPLACED.

All this doesn't count for jack when all KCA rests on are unsupported assertions. Even your goldenchild BVG is only a POSSIBLE theorem which Aguirre & Gratton's theorem so eloquently shows.

simply asserting that it's a "simultaneous causation" when a CREATION event is one that's decidedly NOT one doesn't help your case at all.

Original Simon,

I am quite confused by the italicised bit [prior temporal state of affairs where the effect did not obtain; the word ‘obtain’ is completely alien here (to me) Could you put it differently?

Sure thing. Its your and Joe's objection put succinctly. It runs like; "[there can be no simultaneous causation] if there was no BEFORE where there was no effect."

The words, "where the effect does not obtain," restated is something like, "where there is no application of the [aforementioned] effect."

This I have argued is false with the eternally submerged log illustration.

But to address how I understand of your argument:

[1] Your first sentence is simply wrong. Empirically. Only a deluded person looks at the entire corpus of known observation – which shows that a prior state of affairs is necessary – and then prefers the imaginary world in their head.

[2] I believe that it is you that claims that actual infinities are impossible. (And, again, this is terrible empiricism. What do we know that has remained the same for infinity?) You need to remove the word “shown” and replace it with “imagined, in order that I be right”.

[3] Thus, in the real world, where we make sensible infrences from sensible data around us, there is no such thing as simultaneous causation without a prior temporal state.

Other Simon's argument abbreviated [my comments italicized and in parentheses]:

(1) You're deluded (Ad hominim) – empirically, a prior state of affairs is a necessary condition [for simultaneous causation]. (Observation does not make a prior temporal state a necessary condition. That is like saying "We see that Mother always enters the kitchen to bake a cake, therefore mother entering the kitchen is a necessary condition for one of mother's cakes." The necessary conditions for an effect are only those conditions that produce the effect. In the example of a cause for one of mother's baked cakes, the necessary conditions for the effect are ingredients (material cause), Mother (formal cause) and heat to do the baking (efficient cause). Anyway, the premise is false as shown by the eternally submerged log displacing the water.)

(2) [According to you] actual infinities are impossible in the real world. (Yes, I do. In philosophy we use thought experiments to test and reveal the nature or implications of a thing. So the eternally submerged log displacing the water is not an example in "the real world," but it is a perfectly comprehensible illustration which reveals that, "a prior temporal state where the effect does not obtain (or is not in application)" is not a necessary condition for causation.)

(3) Therefore, there is no such thing as simultaneous causation without a prior temporal state. (Question Begging)

Can't believe I forgot this bit of strawman:

So the so-called problem of it being impossible for the universe to have a cause is not at all insuperable. As Craig says, it is “pretty clearly a pseudo-dilemma.”[4]

This is with regards to the claim that time "began" at some point. Having said that, it leads to further problems for you, since your examples of "simultaneous causations" never show anything to BEGIN.

Joe,

I believe you misunderstand

Stuart: Not at all. In order for water to be displaced, all that is required is for something to create a potentiality such that if it were not there, then the space could be filled.

Joe: That makes no sense. In order for the water to be displaced, it must first inhabit the space which would BE displaced. Or are you saying ALL water is now being displaced? Just because it has the hypothetical “potential” doesn’t mean jack.

(1) The log has eternally been in the water. (2) The water has eternally been displaced. (3) Therefore, at every moment in time, there was cause (a submerged log) simultaneous to the effect (water displacement).

– But you object to #2. You say "In order for water to be displaced from something [it] would REQUIRE that the water was there previously."

This is incorrect. The only necessary conditions for the water to be displaced is the log (material cause), and that it is submerged (effectual cause). If the log were not there, the water would inhabit the place where the log would have been if it were. Because the log is there in the water, the water is displaced.

– The objection Joe is possibly making above; "Just because it [the log] has the hypothetical “potential” [to not be submerged in the water] doesn’t mean jack."

It actually does mean something – it means that the water is displaced. Material causes only exist as potentials, thus they can be there or not be there: be used or not be used. And the possibility of the log not being submerged in the water (which is perfectly understandable) shows us that the water could have been there where the log currently is, and thus the water that is not there now, is displaced.

Please Note: Try stay on topic Joe. Looking at the nature of the cause of the universe is not the burden of this article and is addressed adequately on this blog elsewhere if you care to look.

@OriginalSimon,

Your first sentence is simply wrong. Empirically. Only a deluded person looks at the entire corpus of known observation – which shows that a prior state of affairs is necessary – and then prefers the imaginary world in their head.

This is nothing more than empty rhetoric. First, you appeal to an "entire corpus of known observation" which has never been presented. "Entire" provides the piece with a sense of completeness or conclusiveness in nature. As with many of your previous posts, it is little more than rhetoric. We can know this because it is unlikely that you have reviewed the "entire corpus" to learn this. We can also know this because the corpus which has been present is limited to a few examples.

Second, you simply restated your position. Restating your position does not advance the "discussion." We get it. We really do. You believe a "prior state of affairs is necessary." However, rather than simply state it again for rhetorical impact, something with is obviously not having on Stuart and myself, you need to actually produce some kind of support for your position. Thus, again, it's nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Third, it fails to address my previous criticism about the appeal to ignorance.

Fourth, it attacks an anonymous — not so anonymous really — person as being deluded for not agreeing with you. Again, it's empty rhetoric.

Thus, in the real world, where we make sensible infrences from sensible data around us, there is no such thing as simultaneous causation without a prior temporal state.

This has still not been established. It has been asserted many times over, but not established. Yes, I understand you believe that you have sufficiently defended your assertion, but it's clear you have not otherwise we'd all be in agreement. Thus, "sensible" people need to regroup and consider how it might be possible to move the "discussion" forward. Or, the more "sensible" thing might be to abandon it.

1) The log has eternally been in the water. (2) The water has eternally been displaced. (3) Therefore, at every moment in time, there was cause (a submerged log) simultaneous to the effect (water displacement).

– But you object to #2. You say “In order for water to be displaced from something [it] would REQUIRE that the water was there previously.”

This is incorrect. The only necessary conditions for the water to be displaced is the log (material cause), and that it is submerged (effectual cause).

How can water be displaced from something it never occupied in the first place? Are you even trying anymore?

If the log were not there, the water would inhabit the place where the log would have been if it were. Because the log is there in the water, the water is displaced.

IF the log were not there, the ABSENCE would in fact be the cause of the water taking place where it never was before. This isn't quite the same. Also, when did it ever "begin" in your example?

The objection Joe is possibly making above; “Just because it [the log] has the hypothetical “potential” [to not be submerged in the water] doesn’t mean jack.”

It actually does mean something – it means that the water is displaced. Material causes only exist as potentials, thus they can be there or not be there: be used or not be used.

How can something be displaced where it never occupied in the first place? It BEGINS to occupy a new territory once the log is TAKEN OUT in your example.

move: cause to move or shift into a new position or place, both in a concrete and in an abstract sense; "Move those boxes into the corner, please"; "I'm moving my money to another bank"; "The director moved more responsibilities onto his new assistant"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

And the possibility of the log not being submerged in the water (which is perfectly understandable) shows us that the water could have been there where the log currently is, and thus the water that is not there now, is displaced.

Main Entry: dis·place

Pronunciation: (?)dis-?pl?s, di-?spl?s

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: probably from Middle French desplacer, from des- dis- + place place

Date: 1549

1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place; specifically : to expel or force to flee from home or homeland b : to remove from an office, status, or job c obsolete : to drive out : banish

2 a : to move physically out of position <a> b : to take the place of (as in a chemical reaction) : supplant

synonyms see replace

— dis·place·able -?pl?-s?-b?l adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displac…

So want to try again? Even the last definition which is what you use, shows TO MOVE PHYSICALLY OUT OF POSITION. How can you move something OUT of position when it was never IN that position in the first place?

Please Note: Try stay on topic Joe. Looking at the nature of the cause of the universe is not the burden of this article and is addressed adequately on this blog elsewhere if you care to look.

Why don't you actually stay on your own topic, instead of pulling the ultimately irrelevant example of a causation? It's irrelevant since you're using this as a support for the claim that the universe BEGAN, and thus was caused. You see the problem here?

Joe,

That water can be displaced from a space if it could occupy that space were the material cause not to obtain, that is to say, if the log was not present in the water. I addressed this already.

That water can be displaced from a space if it could occupy that space were the material cause not to obtain, that is to say, if the log was not present in the water. I addressed this already.

You didn't address it so much as just assert just because IF you removed the log, the water would occupy the space it never occupy to begin with, the water is being displaced, despite the fact that you can't displace something that wasn't there TO displace in the first place. I love how your example SHOULD IT BE LEGITIMATE, STILL fails because it never BEGAN to displace, which is the KEY point that makes the entire KCA fall or stand. Because KCA's CORE point is with regards to things BEGINNING, which your example of "simultaneous causation" DOES NOT EXEMPLIFY and in fact works IN OPPOSITION to that, your "support" for it really does not buttress the KCA at all.

@Stuart,

This issue can be easily resolved by pointing to the definition of displacement. Displacement is "the state of being displaced" (Source: Merriam-Webster). Is the water being displaced? Yes.

Main Entry: dis·place

Pronunciation: (?)dis-?pl?s, di-?spl?s

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: probably from Middle French desplacer, from des- dis- + place place

Date: 1549

1 a : to remove from the usual or proper place; specifically : to expel or force to flee from home or homeland b : to remove from an office, status, or job c obsolete : to drive out : banish

2 a : to move physically out of position b : to take the place of (as in a chemical reaction) : supplant

synonyms see replace

— dis·place·able -?pl?-s?-b?l adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displac…

how is the water being displaced if:

1a: it's not being removed from the usual or proper place since it never occupied it IN THE FIRST PLACE?

2a: How is it being "moved physically out of position" it never had taken IN THE FIRST PLACE and b. take the place of something when its place was never empty in the first place?

Joe,

You really are a troll. I've never called anyone a troll before, but you take the cheese. I did address it. Here it is again. Material causes are only potentials, thus they can either apply or not apply. As the water is not where it could potentially be, it is displaced.

I love how your example SHOULD IT BE LEGITIMATE, STILL fails because it never BEGAN to displace, which is the KEY point that makes the entire KCA fall or stand. Because KCA’s CORE point is with regards to things BEGINNING, which your example of “simultaneous causation” DOES NOT EXEMPLIFY and in fact works IN OPPOSITION to that, your “support” for it really does not buttress the KCA at all.

The point of this discussion is to address a particular objection against the conclusion of the KCA. Not to address the KCA's second premise. Please try stay on topic. That said, I know my example of simultaneous causation (the eternally submerged log) does not exemplify a beginning. It doesn't need to. The point of it was to illustrate how a prior temporal state is not a necessary condition of causation. Its doesn't also need analogue to a beginning/creative event. Illustrations are not usually designed to illustrate two things at the same time. They only need to illustrate one for a reasonable person to see the point being made. The oft-repeated objection failing, it is thus a coherent notion for the universe to have a cause.

As I am busy with other projects and have answered all the relevant objections that keep coming up, I'll allow you to continue being a troll, but don't expect me to reply back. Good luck, The Craft Man.

Joe,

You're just arguing a definition. Not the illustration. Replace "displacement" with "not there." The effect is the same either way.

You really are a troll. I’ve never called anyone a troll before, but you take the cheese.

Thanks for the ad hom.

I did address it.

And I've already pointed out how your "addressing" of this is rife with errors.

Here it is again. Material causes are only potentials, thus they can either apply or not apply. As the water is not where it could potentially be, it is displaced.

Material Causes are what the efficient causes work on. Again with this "possibility is actuality" [Edited out foul language]! Just because it COULD be at a certain place provided it is not occupied doesn't mean it EVER was there, nor does it mean that just because it COULD be there, but it's not, it's being displaced. Water is only displaced when it previous inhabits a certain location that is, "moved physically out of position" by the submerging log.

I love how your example SHOULD IT BE LEGITIMATE, STILL fails because it never BEGAN to displace, which is the KEY point that makes the entire KCA fall or stand. Because KCA’s CORE point is with regards to things BEGINNING, which your example of “simultaneous causation” DOES NOT EXEMPLIFY and in fact works IN OPPOSITION to that, your “support” for it really does not buttress the KCA at all.

The point of this discussion is to address a particular objection against the conclusion of the KCA. Not to address the KCA’s second premise. Please try stay on topic.

What I'm dealing with IS the topic, you moron! What kind of [Edited out foul language] is this? The conclusion DEPENDS on the previous two premises, which HINGE on BEGINNING. When you don't deal with this, you FAIL.

That said, I know my example of simultaneous causation (the eternally submerged log) does not exemplify a beginning. It doesn’t need to. The point of it was to illustrate how a prior temporal state is not a necessary condition of causation.

Are you being intentionally dense? OF COURSE it needs to, otherwise your analogy DOES NOT APPLY. KCA, especially Craig's version explicitly states one of CREATION, which is an EVENT of TEMPORAL CAUSATION, since it NEEDS a beginning. Your example of "Simultaneous Cause", like the "eternally submerged log" at BEST, IF it is even a valid example, shows something do not have an antecedent if it does not BEGIN. However, your example STILL fails since by not having BEGUN displacing, you can't say the water is being displaced except in the hypothetical IF the log was PREVIOUSLY NOT THERE, and was placed, the LOG would be displacing the water. As is, however, all that points to is that since there's no water ever being "moved physically out of position" TO BEGIN WITH, THERE IS NO DISPLACEMENT.

Its doesn’t also need analogue to a beginning/creative event. Illustrations are not usually designed to illustrate two things at the same time. They only need to illustrate one for a reasonable person to see the point being made. The oft-repeated objection failing, it is thus a coherent notion for the universe to have a cause.

As I am busy with other projects and have answered all the relevant objections that keep coming up, I’ll allow you to continue being a troll, but don’t expect me to reply back. Good luck, The Craft Man.

Forgot to deal with this drivel:

Its doesn’t also need analogue to a beginning/creative event. Illustrations are not usually designed to illustrate two things at the same time. They only need to illustrate one for a reasonable person to see the point being made. The oft-repeated objection failing, it is thus a coherent notion for the universe to have a cause.

Here's why your analogy fails. You are claiming that "an eternally submerged log does not require a previous antecendent for it to cause simultaneously", this is like the "universe being created does not require a previous antecedent". It fails because you've essentially equivocated CAUSE, where the distinction is SIGNIFICANT.

As I am busy with other projects and have answered all the relevant objections that keep coming up, I’ll allow you to continue being a troll, but don’t expect me to reply back. Good luck, The Craft Man.

LMFAO tuck tail, run. This isn't the first time either, buddy.

Let me make this clear once more: UNLESS there is a previous antecedent prior to which the log was not submerged with which the water is DISPLACED, you CANNOT claim the water is being "displaced" since it NEVER WAS MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Joe,

I actually am busy with other projects. Its not an evasion maneuver.

You have been warned to watch your language. This is second warning – a warning which you were not promised. Further infractions of foul language will result in your comments being placed automatically in purgatory before they are aired for public viewing. Please respect the trust I am placing in you.

@Stuart,

Hehe. I'm not going to bother with him. My summary of his argument: Assert. Reassert. Pound fist. Reassert. Yell louder. Reassert. Repeat.

My conclusion: No substance. Empty rhetoric only.

Though, I'm sure he'll attempt some appeal to my ego.

and CAPITALIZE.

Hehe. I’m not going to bother with him. My summary of his argument: Assert. Reassert. Pound fist. Reassert. Yell louder. Reassert. Repeat.

If you're not going to bother, then shut up and go away. All you've done is fail to point out the problems with YOUR OWN ANALOGY.

My conclusion: No substance. Empty rhetoric only.

The irony here is great, kid.

In fact, what the hell is up with you? NEVER have you even TRIED to deal with the matter, except to REPEAT incessantly with your sniveling tone of "well i'm not going to deal with him!" If you won't, then shut up and get the hell out. Nobody gives an ounce of [edit comment: foul language] whether you do or not, except to note how irritating it is and intellectually vacuous.

Here it is again, Stu and Crafty:

Here’s why your analogy fails. You are claiming that “an eternally submerged log does not require a previous antecendent for it to cause simultaneously”, this is like the “universe being created does not require a previous antecedent”. It fails because you’ve essentially equivocated CAUSE, where the distinction is SIGNIFICANT. Your analogical distance is too great for the example, EVEN IF IT IS HYPOTHETICALLY VALID for it actually count as a support for your position.

Guys, don't mind Joe. I've seen him in action elsewhere — he's just a rather dogmatic troll who refuses to be proven wrong.

Joe,

Your continual use of foul language has landed your comments in purgatory where they will be monitored before public airing, as per warning.

Stuart,

That is like saying “We see that Mother always enters the kitchen to bake a cake, therefore mother entering the kitchen is a necessary condition for one of mother’s cakes.”

If every single instance that we have ever observed a cake being made involves Mother entering the kitchen, then the only sensible conclusion would be that this is a necessry condition for a cake to be made.

Again, only a deluded person looks at the absolutely unequivocal evidence for a prior state of affairs and then prefers the imaginations in their head.

So the eternally submerged log displacing the water is not an example in “the real world,”

Lol. I rest my case. You do not live in the real world Stuart, because it conflicts with what you want to believe.

I see nothing but fanciful wishings in 'opposition' to the cold hard empirical fact that a prior state of affairs is necessary to simultaneous causation.

TheCraftMan,

You are not really worth responding to. When people start claiming ("First, you appeal to an “entire corpus of known observation” which has never been presented. ") that the entire corpus of evidence be presented, they really just don't have any good argument, so all they can do is try to throw doubt onto reasonable claims.

Put up or shut up. If the entire corpus of known observationdoes NOT involve a prior state of affairs, then give me EVEN ONE EXAMPLE THAT DOESN'T. You can't. Because you are wrong. I'm just not going to respond unless you can do this.

Original Simon,

Repeating assertions and calling me deluded is not really worthwhile commenting on.

If every single instance that we have ever observed a cake being made involves Mother entering the kitchen, then the only sensible conclusion would be that this is a necessry condition for a cake to be made.

Only its not sensible. Some things are just obvious and shouldn't need to be argued. Here, have some mother's cake that was baked in the staff room at school.

Have a nice day. :-)

@OriginalSimon,

You are not really worth responding to.

Thanks.

When people start claiming (“First, you appeal to an “entire corpus of known observation” which has never been presented. “) that the entire corpus of evidence be presented, they really just don’t have any good argument, so all they can do is try to throw doubt onto reasonable claims.

If you had understood the criticism properly, then you would have realized it was centered on your use of categorical statements for rhetorical impact when, in fact, the categorical statements themselves were absurd in nature. Have you reviewed the entire corpus? No. Is there anyone here who has? No. Therefore, none of use can possibly make appeals to the entire corpus. We can only appeal to what we know and can present.

And, again, you're employing weasel words (i.e., "reasonable claims").

Put up or shut up. If the entire corpus of known observationdoes NOT involve a prior state of affairs, then give me EVEN ONE EXAMPLE THAT DOESN’T. You can’t. Because you are wrong. I’m just not going to respond unless you can do this.

If you review the thread, you will notice I never claimed "no prior state of affairs is necessary." I have simply been countering your arguments against the notion. It's kind of like the way many atheists argue in favor of atheism. (I should know. I learned the tactic from atheists.)

@Stuart

Have you ever noticed how atheists get their panties in a bunch when they're expected to actually defend a position rather than simply having everyone assume it?

Stuart,

Repeating assertions and calling me deluded is not really worthwhile commenting on.

…Only its not sensible [Mother's cake]….

Yeah, harsh but true I think. In trying to claim simultaneous cause you have used infinities which you yourself don't believe in, used blatantly incomparable situations (baking cakes and simultaneous cause), and continue to contradict yourself by asserting that the univese was created at a certain point in time, while accepting that time is internal to the universe.

And yet you run round calling people contradictory. I think deluded is quite apt.

TheCrafMan,

If you had understood the criticism properly, then you would have realized it was centered on your use of categorical statements for rhetorical impact when, in fact, the categorical statements themselves were absurd in nature.

Oh, I understand it. If one cannot apply a categorical statement to the empirical observation that everything we ever seen has a prior state of affairs, then one cannot make a categorical statement ever! Ergo, your epistemology is completely useless.

If you review the thread, you will notice I never claimed “no prior state of affairs is necessary.” I have simply been countering your arguments against the notion.

So you think that a prior state of affairs IS necessary then.

You are one of theose people, then, who doesn't really care what they are arguing about; the goal of the argument for you is that you can feed your ego and feel superior. Well, do you? Considering that your arguing is plain wrong: a prior state of affairs IS necessary.

Original SImon,

Give it a rest.

Stuart,

Your defeatist composure is very appropriate.

If you wish to view it that way, go ahead.

@OriginalSimon,

Oh, I understand it. If one cannot apply a categorical statement to the empirical observation that everything we ever seen has a prior state of affairs, then one cannot make a categorical statement ever! Ergo, your epistemology is completely useless.

Hehe. This is incorrect. We can make categorical statements when they are properly supported by conclusive reasoning. That is, when there are no other possible options. With a lack of such support, we can only make statements as strong as the support allows. So, rather than being "completely useless," my perspective is actually being honest.

So you think that a prior state of affairs IS necessary then.

I never claimed a prior state of affairs is or is not necessary. I have argued that your arguments in favor of a prior state of affairs being necessary have failed.

You are one of theose people, then, who doesn’t really care what they are arguing about; the goal of the argument for you is that you can feed your ego and feel superior. Well, do you? Considering that your arguing is plain wrong: a prior state of affairs IS necessary.

My emotional attachment or lack thereof is irrelevant. What is relevant are the arguments presented. You have not bothered to address my criticisms, but rather you simple restate your conclusion. So, any chance you'll bother to answer my criticisms? Or will you simply get your panties in a bunch again?