Kalam

[Jehanne]

I am okay with everything that you state, as long as it is understood that there are events that just happen (e.g., the radioactive decay of one atom versus the nondecay of another) that are not caused by anything; they just happen.

Sounds like your problem is not with Thomism but rather the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

I guess that such depends. I believe that I exist, that other individuals have minds such as myself, that the Cosmos is comprehensible and can be described by mathematical, physical and statistical models; that deductive & inductive mathematical proofs exist, etc.

I don't think that the PSR can establish the existence of God, a Creator, a soul, an afterlife or any sort of paranormal or supernatural forces and/or effects in our Universe. Rather, we ought to reject non-material causes due to the fact that if paranormal or supernatural entities or forces existed, such could be observed, empirically. In this respect, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

As for the origin of the Universe, the fact that mathematical physicists can develop coherent mathematical models that describe an eternal Universe is sufficient for me, as I think that an infinite, eternal Universe is a more parsimonious explanation than an uncaused God whom we do not observe and who is arguably much more complex than we are, having been the product of several billion years of biological evolution.

[Jehanne]

I am okay with everything that you state, as long as it is understood that there are events that just happen (e.g., the radioactive decay of one atom versus the nondecay of another) that are not caused by anything; they just happen.

Yeah, we've been through this before. By "just happen" you are ruling out a temporal efficient cause.

This does not rule out causes as Aristotle uses the term. 

For example, for radioactive decay to occur, there must be several prior conditions (=causes). 

Among these causes: 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.

The fact that there is no temporal efficient cause doesn't change the per se series of causes of which Aristotle and Thomas write.

The various isotopes of Uranium are, of course, created in supernova explosions, which are themselves the product of the proton-proton cycle of hydrogen fusion under the influence of gravity and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons. We can continue this line of thought all the way back to the Big Bang.

[Belacqua]

Yeah, we've been through this before. By "just happen" you are ruling out a temporal efficient cause.

This does not rule out causes as Aristotle uses the term. 

For example, for radioactive decay to occur, there must be several prior conditions (=causes). 

Among these causes: 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.

The fact that there is no temporal efficient cause doesn't change the per se series of causes of which Aristotle and Thomas write.

The various isotopes of Uranium are, of course, created in supernova explosions, which are themselves the product of the proton-proton cycle of hydrogen fusion under the influence of gravity and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons.  We can continue this line of thought all the way back to the Big Bang.

OK. All of this is compatible with a per se series of causes.

[Angrboda]

'Spose it cannot be helped given the specialized nomenclature of the Scholastics. That said, I do believe in classical philosophy causality is more about quiddity than temporal arrangements....formal cause, for example, is a cause with no temporal aspect. That said, the common classical examples of efficient cause happen to be temporal in nature but IMHO not necessarily so.

This seems to be the main sticking point with talking about causality in Aristotle/Thomas. People are just unwilling to grasp the difference in the way the terms are used.

And Thomists cling to semantic arguments such as yours as if they actually met the objection they supposedly respond to when in fact they do not. Aquinas' argument wasn't about formal causes, and even with the Thomism fully taken on board, temporality isn't forgotten or mooted. A reply, if it is to be anything other than a non sequitur, has to function as a defeater for the argument. Neither you nor Neo's replies do that. The problem is not that Thomism eludes us; it's that Thomism fails as a cogent response.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This seems to be the main sticking point with talking about causality in Aristotle/Thomas. People are just unwilling to grasp the difference in the way the terms are used.

And Thomists cling to semantic arguments such as yours as if they actually met the objection they supposedly respond to when in fact they do not.  Aquinas' argument wasn't about formal causes, and even with the Thomism fully taken on board, temporality isn't forgotten or mooted.  A reply, if it is to be anything other than a non sequitur, has to function as a defeater for the argument.  Neither you nor Neo's replies do that.  The problem is not that Thomism eludes us; it's that Thomism fails as a cogent response.

Remember it's never the failure of their argument it's simply that you aren't smart enough to understand it.....

Gaslighting 101

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'Spose it cannot be helped given the specialized nomenclature of the Scholastics. That said, I do believe in classical philosophy causality is more about quiddity than temporal arrangements....formal cause, for example, is a cause with no temporal aspect. That said, the common classical examples of efficient cause happen to be temporal in nature but IMHO not necessarily so.

This seems to be the main sticking point with talking about causality in Aristotle/Thomas. People are just unwilling to grasp the difference in the way the terms are used.

There’s a perfectly valid reason why people are more familiar with efficient cause than the others. I’ll leave you to see if you can suss it out.

Boru

[Jehanne]

The various isotopes of Uranium are, of course, created in supernova explosions, which are themselves the product of the proton-proton cycle of hydrogen fusion under the influence of gravity and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons.  We can continue this line of thought all the way back to the Big Bang.

OK. All of this is compatible with a per se series of causes.

Yeah, sure, on empirical grounds, one cannot prove the non-existence of a god(s); naturalism only claims that Nature can be described and modeled based upon the regularly occurring and repeated patterns that are universally observed.

[LinuxGal]

I am okay with everything that you state, as long as it is understood that there are events that just happen (e.g., the radioactive decay of one atom versus the nondecay of another) that are not caused by anything; they just happen.

Yeah, we've been through this before. By "just happen" you are ruling out a temporal efficient cause.

This does not rule out causes as Aristotle uses the term. 

For example, for radioactive decay to occur, there must be several prior conditions (=causes). 

Among these causes: 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.

The fact that there is no temporal efficient cause doesn't change the per se series of causes of which Aristotle and Thomas write.

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

[Belacqua]

Yeah, we've been through this before. By "just happen" you are ruling out a temporal efficient cause.

This does not rule out causes as Aristotle uses the term. 

For example, for radioactive decay to occur, there must be several prior conditions (=causes). 

Among these causes: 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.

The fact that there is no temporal efficient cause doesn't change the per se series of causes of which Aristotle and Thomas write.

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And Thomists cling to semantic arguments such as yours as if they actually met the objection they supposedly respond to when in fact they do not.  Aquinas' argument wasn't about formal causes, and even with the Thomism fully taken on board, temporality isn't forgotten or mooted.  A reply, if it is to be anything other than a non sequitur, has to function as a defeater for the argument.  Neither you nor Neo's replies do that.  The problem is not that Thomism eludes us; it's that Thomism fails as a cogent response.

Remember it's never the failure of their argument it's simply that you aren't smart enough to understand it.....

Gaslighting 101

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.