One piece, the Kalam

[Hieronymus]

I really don't know what your problem is.
You seem to feel it's necessary to complicate a simple concept.
What's wrong with the first description in your opinion?

 

[quatona]

Absence of causality exists. I have just spoken it into existence.

 

[Hieronymus]

How is it more "logically sound" than "needing no cause"?

I ḿ not sure what you mean...

Only the original (first) cause can not be caused, or it wouldn't be the original (first) cause.

 

[Hieronymus]

Absence of causality exists. I have just spoken it into existence.

So you think speaking something into existence is something causeless?
That doesn't make sense.

 

[quatona]

I really don't know what your problem is.
You seem to feel it's necessary to complicate a simple concept.

You said "grab a dictionary". I grapped a dictionary, and it gave me 11 very differing concepts.

What's wrong with the first description in your opinion?

I don´t think there´s anything wrong with any of these definitions. I´m just asking you which one you want to be applied for purposes of your argument.

 

[Hieronymus]

You said "grab a dictionary". I grapped a dictionary, and it gave me 11 very differing concepts.

The first one is the main one, it's a good explanation.
The following descriptions are derived from the first.
No contradictions.

 

[quatona]

So you think speaking something into existence is something causeless?

No. I was just following your idea that "speaking something into existence" is matching our concept of causality.

 

[quatona]

The first one is the main one, it's a good explanation.

Are you sure that it´s the one that you want to use consistently - without adding to it or qualifying it in the further course of your argument?

 

[Hieronymus]

from dictionary.com:
1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect:
(some examples)

Looks like a fine definition to me.

 

[quatona]

Looks like a fine definition to me.

Are you sure that it´s the one that you want to use consistently - without adding to it or qualifying it in the further course of your argument?

 

[Hieronymus]

Are you sure that it´s the one that you want to use consistently - without adding to it or qualifying it in the further course of your argument?

It's what i have been using all the time.

 

[quatona]

It's what i have been using all the time.

Are you sure that it´s the one that you want to use consistently - without adding to it or qualifying it in the further course of your argument?

 

[Hieronymus]

Are you sure that it´s the one that you want to use consistently - without adding to it or qualifying it in the further course of your argument?

Yes, quite sure.
It's the general universal meaning of "cause".

 

[The Cadet]

Ex nihilo doesn't mean there is no cause. It means (in this case) it's not constructed using anything which you can find in the universe. It means for example something physical beginning to exist from something immaterial.Well, if God exists, it's actually not ex nihilo, but 'ex-logo', or as we say: spoken into existence, creation, creating matter.

Well that doesn't really help you, as we have also never observed creation "ex-logo". We have never observed anything begin to exist within this universe in the way you have described.

 

[quatona]

Ok. Then let´s look at it.
It starts by explicitly qualifying a cause to be a "thing or a person" - i.e. a physical entity.
Thus, if you want causality to be a universal (and extra-universal) principle, something immaterial can´t be the cause of matter, by virtue of this very definition.

 

[quatona]

Furthermore "something causing itself" is - in the absence of time - entirely possible if we apply this definition.

 

[Hieronymus]

Ok. Then let´s look at it.
It starts by explicitly qualifying a cause to be a "thing or a person" - i.e. a physical entity.

It doesn't say physical.
Example: "Hate causes war" Hate is not a physical thing.

 

[quatona]

Thirdly, when you stated that the cause of a loaf of bread is bakery, you were obviously violating your definition - because bakery isn´t a thing or person.

 

[Hieronymus]

Furthermore "something causing itself" is - in the absence of time - entirely possible if we apply this definition.

No, that's logically impossible.

 

[Hieronymus]

Thirdly, when you stated that the cause of a loaf of bread is bakery, you were obviously violating your definition - because bakery isn´t a thing or person.

A bakery is not a thing?