Kalam

[Angrboda]

Having all your ducks in a row doesn't actaully cause the fall of one of the ducks.

Probably we should give up on the word "cause" because you're still using it in a different sense from Aristotle or Thomas. 

In order for radioactive decay to occur, several αἰτία are essentially prior. 

Among these αἰτία: there has to be something to decay. There has to be a universe in which it can decay. There have to be laws of nature such that radioactive decay is possible. There has to be time and space in which it can decay.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Kalam. Thomas' "second way" is different, and he explicitly rejects logical proofs for temporal causes of the universe.

And you're still being obtuse. In order for anything to be the result of a collection of  αἰτία then said  αἰτία need to exist prior to the existence of the effect in question, except and unless there is simultaneous causation, in the Thomist sense. But the simultaneous existence of things, under Thomism, is not causation but simply coexistence. You have a lot of knowledge acquired over years but you have no clue how to actually apply it. Quantity, is not quality.

[Jehanne]

Having all your ducks in a row doesn't actaully cause the fall of one of the ducks.

Probably we should give up on the word "cause" because you're still using it in a different sense from Aristotle or Thomas. 

In order for radioactive decay to occur, several αἰτία are essentially prior. 

Among these αἰτία: there has to be something to decay. There has to be a universe in which it can decay. There have to be laws of nature such that radioactive decay is possible. There has to be time and space in which it can decay.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Kalam. Thomas' "second way" is different, and he explicitly rejects logical proofs for temporal causes of the universe.

Yeah, and Aristotle also believed that women were undeveloped men who just did not "quite make it". Who cares about what Aristotle thought? His importance lie in getting Humanity from a previous point in thought to a later one.

[LadyForCamus]

On the contrary, it is written (Summa P1 Q3 A3):

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Kalam is about a temporal chain of causation. The Thomist ways are about essential chains.

What is the difference between the two?

Edit:

Disregard; I’m caught up. 😛

[LadyForCamus]

Then, let's get practical -- what do both of you think the cause(s) of malignant tumors are?

Using the term "cause" in the Aristotelian/Thomist way, the causes of a malignant tumor are all the things that must be the case for a malignant tumor to exist. 

These include the malignant cells, whatever mechanism made them become malignant, the living body on which the tumor lives, the laws of nature which govern the ways in which the chemical/biological actions take place, the time/space of the universe in which the laws of nature operate, etc. 

Since the tumor is something that appeared after the body of the patient, this is a case where there is a temporal element. (The passage of time is also one of the causes.) However there are also cases in which the temporal element is not a relevant part of the causal chain.

In a per se series, of the kind that Aristotle deals with, "prior" means it is higher up the chain of necessary things. So the laws of nature are prior in the sense that you can imagine a world with laws of nature but no tumor, but you can't imagine a world with a tumor but no laws of nature.

Aristotle wrote in Greek and Thomas in Latin. I agree that the English translation "cause" is misleading to modern people. "Necessary conditions" might be better.

But none of those states of affairs could exist without time.

[Belacqua]

But none of those states of affairs could exist without time.

You're right. I certainly don't mean to imply that Aristotle believed in a static universe, or that things don't develop over time. Everything is in motion, which means time.

The point is that Kalam argues for a thing that happened at one time, which then might have stopped. An analogy would be dominoes -- the first domino falls and starts the sequence, but then the first one is out of action. It could lie there, or the cat could eat it, or whatever, and it wouldn't affect the ongoing fall of the dominoes. 

So that's a temporal starting point, as is the Big Bang. (A series per accidens, because the cause of the previous step could disappear, and the chain would continue.)

Aristotle believed in an eternal universe, that has always been going. So there was no point when the first domino hadn't fallen yet. 

For Aristotle (and Thomas) the analogy would be to a set of gears. The first gear provides the initial impetus and makes all the rest of the gears turn, but if it stopped all the rest would stop too. This applies to the motion of things in the universe, but, more importantly, to the existence of things in the universe. Each turning gear relies for its motion and existence on the previous gear, back to the First Cause Gear.

I hasten to add that this is an analogy ONLY to show the dependence of each step in the chain on the first step. I know that in real life you need a hamster to turn the first gear. Plus the gears need to touch, etc. It is an analogy only concerning the dependence of the parts. 

Sorry, I don't want people to start arguing about mechanical motion, when that's only an analogy.

Confusingly enough, Thomas DID believe that the universe had a temporal starting point, because the Bible tells him so. But that, for him, was an article of faith. He was persuaded by Aristotle's argument that such a starting point could not be proved by logic. So those troublesome five ways never argue for a temporal starting point. (Kalam does.) 

When you get your time machine, PLEASE go back and persuade the English translator not to translate Aristotle's αἰτία as "cause." This has led to such confusion that annoying people like me have to step in and try to clear things up, and it never goes well.

[Jehanne]

Aristotle also believed that heavier objects fall intrinsically faster than do lighter ones; he also rejected Aristarchus' helocentric model. Why the focus on what he thought, as if such even matters??

[The Architect Of Fate]

No. I your case, you have proven repeatedly that it is you who is either not very smart or just unable to see beyond your own prejudice.

No. I'm afraid no such thing has been proven let alone repetitively. I know you would love that to be the case as it would excuse your ideology's failings and by extension your own.

[Angrboda]

Bel, your ignorance is showing.  In some fantasy universe which doesn't exist your analogy and Aquinas' argument as you interpret it might be apt and cogent.  Unfortunately that universe does not exist, and it is only your ignorance which fails to alert you to the discrepancy.  Aquinas' first cause, conceived in your terms, is not applicable to this universe.  As such, it is nothing but a reminder of your limitations as a thinker.

[LadyForCamus]

But none of those states of affairs could exist without time.

You're right. I certainly don't mean to imply that Aristotle believed in a static universe, or that things don't develop over time. Everything is in motion, which means time.

The point is that Kalam argues for a thing that happened at one time, which then might have stopped.

Maybe I’m just not as well-read on the subject, but where in the Kalam does it argue that the event that started the sequence might have stopped, or could stop once the sequence has been initiated? 

An analogy would be dominoes -- the first domino falls and starts the sequence, but then the first one is out of action. It could lie there, or the cat could eat it, or whatever, and it wouldn't affect the ongoing fall of the dominoes. 

So that's a temporal starting point, as is the Big Bang. (A series per accidens, because the cause of the previous step could disappear, and the chain would continue.)

How does anyone know that the chain would continue if the cause of the Big Bang disappeared, especially considering we don’t even know what the cause of the Big Bang is?

Aristotle believed in an eternal universe, that has always been going. So there was no point when the first domino hadn't fallen yet.

Time is a dimension of even an eternal universe, no?

[Angrboda]

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your hometown
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way