What causes causation at the subjective level?

Again, I'm not sure how you've derived your conclusion from anything I've said in either thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Causation from an Aristotelian-Scholastic view seems pretty coherent to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, what are your conclusions on said threads/topics/arguments?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm agnostic about the possibility of uncaused causes.

 

Well, we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for uncaused events just as we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for a cause that transcends our universe to act on our universe. But mind you the beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused, so there appears to be some indication that our present physical laws may allow for transcendence giving transcending causes an edge.

 

Not so long ago in this thread you implied that it wasn't possible to tell the difference between a supernatural cause and an uncaused cause, but now you're suggesting otherwise.

In any case, although it's pretty clear that the universe as we know it had a beginning, the state of things before that time is the subject of speculation only. It would be reasonable to argue (at least as reasonable as any other argument anyway) that the universe as we know it is simply a manifestation of the same eternally existent infinite amount of energy that was present before the Big Bang.

 

I haven't implied. I simply rasied questions.
Actual statements:

So, the universe is finite?

*Edit: Is it logical to say that universe depends on a infinite being or something infinite that would be good in order to exist?

 

One day, perhaps by accident only, we're going to be on the same page.

To answer your question, the universe appears to be infinite, and I suspect that it is no matter what state all of it's constituent elements happen to be in.

 

Using those examples as an analogy, it would instead seem to be "Does causation cause?" that fits them rather than "Does causation have a cause?". The latter situation could at least present the appearance of a narrow loop of circularity, depending on whether the concept is being reified as the potent source of all particular instances of cause/effect, -- or is merely intended as a descriptive generalization that has its origin in human interpretations of what certain experienced events have in common.

A re-phrasing of "Does causation have a provenance?" can take into account possibilities of causation having an origin beyond itself. Not just the nominalist one of human invention, but any critical analysis that discovers (reified) causation being dependent upon space and time as underlying forms for its relationships of cause/effect, and so forth. That is, any conclusion from examination that exposes causation not actually being some fundamental or self-contained rule that things in either the experienced world or a metaphysical one are conforming to.

 

No.

 

well, to quibble...

1) a statement really can't be logical or not logical. It can be true or false or nonsensical or some mixture of these. But logic comes in when we have statements that interact. If thens and premises and conclusions. Logical is a positive adjective evaluation of the argument, these interactions.
2) Is it necessary for a God or some such for a universe to exist? We don't know. Perhaps physicists will find that it is necessary - though I am sure they will avoid the word God, at least in formal papers, who knows. The question can then be qualified: is it necessary given what we know? But then, which we are we talking about, and what do we know? Limited perspectives yield limited evaluations of necessity.