A Couple of Fair Questions

[Lambert]

Where in the universe does causation end?

Nowhere IN the universe, but everywhere outside it.

Causation is not a prime mover but points at a cause that was prior cause, and the universe is infinite without a beginning and without an end but is the void that is needed to make atoms known. 

[pat1911]

Where in the universe does causation end?

Nowhere IN the universe, but everywhere outside it.

Math is outside the universe. It's a metaphysical entity, and yet it's caused. What is 4 contingent upon? All it's integers. It's outside the universe, it exists even if the universe does not, it's a causal entity.
The laws of the universe, they exist outside the universe the universe it contingent upon them, yet they exist whether there is a universe or not.
Causation does not end outside the universe. It is very much in play in metaphysics. So causation does not end outside the universe.

[pat1911]

The universe doesn't exist? I am not even going to bother.

Show me where it is.

Go outside, Look up.
Just because you cannot prove something as an absolute doesn't mean it does not exist, it means it's not an absolute. It is however, very highly probable to a high degree of certainty. If your point is that you have to take it on faith, yes to a certain degree you do.
Nothing physical is a certainty. But you cannot get to certainties without the physical. Here is where Kant wins.

That is my point. I see nothing but empty space until cloud comes by and then I see a cloud. And there may be particles and atoms in space and that can only be if there is room for them in space, and that can only be if space has no being of its own.

Oh, and Kant will always be wrong because certainty is found in the essence of being and not in the being he was looking at. This is where the Universe has no being, eternity has Being in all beings to make beings the embodiment of the Being that makes infinity known on earth.

Everything you just said is proof of the universe. None of it can be perceived with out the universe existing. And Kant is usually right, even if his writing style is an unwelcome torture

[pat1911]

Where in the universe does causation end?

Nowhere IN the universe, but everywhere outside it.

Causation is not a prime mover but points at a cause that was prior cause, and the universe is infinite without a beginning and without an end but is the void that is needed to make atoms known.

Causation is a mechanism, a Prime Mover is an agent.

[osmosis321]

Math is outside the universe. It's a metaphysical entity, and yet it's caused. What is 4 contingent upon? All it's integers. It's outside the universe, it exists even if the universe does not, it's a causal entity.

4 is contingent on there being more than 3.  The Maths do not exist outside the universe, they are descriptive of this universe.

The laws of the universe, they exist outside the universe the universe it contingent upon them, yet they exist whether there is a universe or not.

The laws of the universe only apply to the universe itself, which is why we refer to them as "the laws of the universe".  Cause and effect is a physical non-law.  Not only does it not exist outside the universe, it doesn't even exist within the physical universe.  Science has shown us that uncaused events happen.

Causation does not end outside the universe.

Causation isn't even the rule INSIDE the universe, so don't try to pretend it's some kind of metaphysical principle.  It's not.  The universe is not part of some larger construct that has laws.

[pat1911]

Math is outside the universe. It's a metaphysical entity, and yet it's caused. What is 4 contingent upon? All it's integers. It's outside the universe, it exists even if the universe does not, it's a causal entity.

4 is contingent on there being more than 3.  The Maths do not exist outside the universe, they are descriptive of this universe.

So if you left the universe, you think 2+2 would no longer equal 4? What's the justification for that?

The laws of the universe, they exist outside the universe the universe it contingent upon them, yet they exist whether there is a universe or not.

The laws of the universe only apply to the universe itself, which is why we refer to them as "the laws of the universe".  Cause and effect is a physical non-law.  Not only does it not exist outside the universe, it doesn't even exist within the physical universe.  Science has shown us that uncaused events happen.

I assume you mean to bring up the common misconceptions of quantum mechanics. Tell me, what part of a diffraction pattern is causeless? QM follows classical logic.  It's a problem of space-time, not logic.

Causation does not end outside the universe.

Causation isn't even the rule INSIDE the universe, so don't try to pretend it's some kind of metaphysical principle.  It's not.  The universe is not part of some larger construct that has laws.

Causation is a physical principle? What's the physical component of causation?

[osmosis321]

Causation is a physical principle? What's the physical component of causation?

No, causation is a physical non-principle.  Once again, uncaused events happen within this universe.

But to answer your question, the causation we generally observe has to do with the nature of this universe: time, matter and conservation.

I assume you mean to bring up the common misconceptions of quantum mechanics.

I assume you think you know more than I about QM.

Tell me, what part of a diffraction pattern is causeless? QM follows classical logic.  It's a problem of space-time, not logic.

QM does NOT follow classical logic, that's why we have a separate branch of science called QM.  I'm not talking about diffraction patterns, I'm talking about uncaused events, such as nuclear decay.  Clearly you don't know what you're talking about and need to stop.

[Lambert]

There is no physical principle in the efficient cause, and I suppose accidents happen that allows for mutation and drift and whatever else they may call this, but for the efficient cause to be it must have an influence on DNA, and that is where I hold that the soul (that we call RNA) has an influence on the formation of DNA.

So the efficient cause provides the pathway to have and effect on the material cause.

[pat1911]

Causation is a physical principle? What's the physical component of causation?

No, causation is a physical non-principle.  Once again, uncaused events happen within this universe.

But to answer your question, the causation we generally observe has to do with the nature of this universe: time, matter and conservation.

Example?

I assume you mean to bring up the common misconceptions of quantum mechanics.

I assume you think you know more than I about QM.

I made no assumptions with regards to your under standing of QM. I am saying it does not support the idea of uncaused events. It's an overreach of the science to use it as such. The scientific discipline does not exist with the goal to disprove causation.

Tell me, what part of a diffraction pattern is causeless? QM follows classical logic.  It's a problem of space-time, not logic.

QM does NOT follow classical logic, that's why we have a separate branch of science called QM.  I'm not talking about diffraction patterns, I'm talking about uncaused events, such as nuclear decay.  Clearly you don't know what you're talking about and need to stop.

Nuclear decay is uncaused? Surely you cannot be serious. Are you saying that radioactive decay does not require the instability of an atom? Are you saying it's not a constant? Clearly you don't understand causation and perhaps you need to stop. Smugness will not help your case.

And yes, QM does follow classical logic. I confirmed this with a Theoretical Physicist from CERN. Yes, that is an appeal to authority. But the authority confirmed QM follows classical logic. QM does not present problems in logic, it present problems with physics. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to give his name, so you can believe me or not. Makes no difference to me.

[osmosis321]

Nuclear decay is uncaused? Surely you cannot be serious.

It involves uncaused events, or at the very least, events for which we can discern no cause.

This is all moot anyways.  The universe is not part of some larger construct with rules to obey.  Even if cause and effect were absolutely true, it still would not follow that cause and effect has anything to do with the origin of cause and effect.

[pat1911]

Nuclear decay is uncaused? Surely you cannot be serious.

It involves uncaused events, or at the very least, events for which we can discern no cause.

Well atomic instability is causal, for one. And not knowing additional factors, does not rule them out.

This is all moot anyways.  The universe is not part of some larger construct with rules to obey.  Even if cause and effect were absolutely true, it still would not follow that cause and effect has anything to do with the origin of cause and effect.

The universe is contingent upon what it's consisted of, contingency is absolutely in play here. You cannot arbitrarily remove it without any sort of logical justification of it. It doesn't just stop because you don't want it to.
Causation is a metaphysical construct. It's truth is determined by definition. That an entity is what it is, because it's dependent on that which makes it so. For instance, you cannot have radioactive decay without atomic instability. Atomic instability is a defining factor, a contingency, a dependency for decay to take place.

[osmosis321]

Causation is a metaphysical construct.

Once again, the universe is not part of a larger construct with laws.  The universe IS those laws, and those laws are responsible for what we call causation.  You can take Craig's word for it if you like, but I'll go with science.

[pat1911]

Causation is a metaphysical construct.

Once again, the universe is not part of a larger construct with laws.  The universe IS those laws, and those laws are responsible for what we call causation.  You can take Craig's word for it if you like, but I'll go with science.

That's circular reasoning.
The universe is guided by natural law.
The universe created natural law.
The universe just is.

Science does not support this type of circular reasoning. Something cannot be it's own reason. It's a logical fallacy. You can go with circular reasoning if you like, I will follow logic.

[Lambert]

What we call the universe is the greater whole of what we see . . . but still remains an empty hole for other things 'to be' and they make up the laws that govern them, just as Lord God has his say in every 'thing' and God just watches the show go on and actually is entertained by it all and therefore called it good with no opposite in bad.

[osmosis321]

What we call the universe is the greater whole of what we see . . . but still remains an empty hole for other things 'to be' and they make up the laws that govern them, just as Lord God has his say in every 'thing' and God just watches the show go on and actually is entertained by it all and therefore called it good with no opposite in bad.

This is just an assertion with ZERO evidence.