I just define them along a spectrum, which I believe is typical. Affect means something broader than cause, which is a more narrow and powerful influence. An airborne ball is caused by being thrown, but affected by the wind speed. I realize you can claim they are ultimately synonyms, which is fine by me.
How so?
Logic does not use physical causality because logic/math is not a physical entity. When dealing with mere concepts, such as numbers, the word “cause” means something a little different - “be-cause”.
===========
To me, the nuance difference would be that “to affect” means to alter what is already there, whereas “to cause” is to bring about what wasn’t there. But in the long run, those are the same thing because anything that is brought about that wasn’t there is only brought by altering what was there.
How so? Read them. It’s not a secret.
As to your other point - the claim was that we are incapable of rational thought without the PSR and without subscribing to causation as an all-encompassing explanation of the universe. All logic ever does is to deal with “concepts” - specifically statements.
What isn’t a secret is that usually once the PSR is accepted, people follow that thought to a belief in God. And back in the day, many started with a belief in God and went from there. But I am not seeing how PSR requires any initial belief in God.
Emm…
All thought ever does is deal with concepts. What was your point? 
James - let’s first distinguish between the idea that everything must have a reason and that everything must have a cause. In the present discussion, it’s the latter that is operative. So let’s ask,
“Why should this be so?”
Well, why should it be so? Neither logic nor science requires this notion. Neither necessarily lead us there. What is required is an infinite regress of causes. That is nothing like a sufficient explanation for anything. To hold this view, there must be a first cause. What would that be?
My other point is just what i stated. rational thought does not require causality. I’m not sure how much more simply I can say it.
To elaborate, the necessity that everything have a reason, broadly, is merely a human psychological imperative. Humans like reasons.
Reasons make it easier to predict what will happen in the future. And successful predictions are useful for survival.
This is supposed to be an argument???
It does not exist because it would be contrary to James point “A”?
This thread is great.
There you got to the bottom of it, quite casually; it exists because it is a powerful tool. This is why everyone believes in it. Predetermination is far less of a powerful tool and is therefore much more widely questioned.
Faust - a first cause is an uncaused cause. Aren’t you suggesting that there could be a number of uncaused causes, past, present and future? But it’s unclear to me how anything that exists could not stand in actual relationship to a past. Surely anything that exists, exists in time? I’ve heard it argued that tracing causes back in time is an “infinite regress” problem, but i have no idea what’s problematic about it other than its misguided linearity. Why must there be a first cause? Why cant time and space be beginningless, and endless?
Following the logic of causality, a first cause can only be self-caused. It cant be uncaused. There is either a causal frame of logic that we presume to work in or there isnt.
That, anon, is why there can be a discrete cause, contrary to a discrete physical object; because causality itself is a discretely logical concept, unlike “existence”.
What is the cause of the concept causality?
Its use.
It was developed so that men could be more effective at what their drives were going for.
If this, then this - this is the meaning of causality.
Not: this => [unfathomable causal god mechanism] => that.
Causality does not physically exist. It is a grammar that we use to compartmentalize our observations so as to be able to respond to them.
FC - give me an example of a truly discrete thing or event. Something with no past, or no future, with no relation to a context. Cause and effect show us that nothing can be truly discrete. But then people get mixed up and talk about causes as if they exist, and perhaps even contain some inner power to effect. And because they reify presumed causes, they find themselves at odds with the world. Worst case scenario, they become determinists or libertarians. They take their confusion all the way.
The one with the most power. 
Doesn’t self-caused imply two things, though? I’dassert that it does.
I disagree about discrete causes. A discrete cause must have a power to effect, but nothing has such power, in itself.
Ok, so how does that relate to predetermination?
Feel free to describe an uncaused event, or uncausation itself. Oh, and make sure you don’t use anything remotely causal in your premises and arguments.
Using math as a counter-example to the idea of PSR causality is disingenuous. 2+2 does not “cause” 4, 4 is defined as, in part, 2+2, the combination of two groups of two things each. 4 is the same as 2+2, which is what “=” means… the same. Self-causation is self-contradictory, so claiming that 2+2=4 is an instance where we need to determine how causality functions is an erroneous claim, just like saying that this apple sitting here caused itself therefore how do I explain the causation in that?
If two groups of two things each come together and we end up with “four” things, then there is, in reality, always going to be a causality behind why that event took place. You need to look to specific, real examples to find specific, real causes.
God is not required for the PSR. Spinoza’s basic description of the idea is simply: “There is nothing that exists about which we cannot ask “why?” of its existence”. Again, if you want to demonstrate even one single existent thing about which we cannot ask “why?”, feel free to do so. And make sure to explain why we cannot ask “why”.
Correlation means there is some causal relationship but it cannot be ascertained yet, or may be indirect or through a third intermediary. For example, the common example used in psychology to show how correlation is not causation, “There is a positive correlation between crime rates and the number of churches in a given area.” Yet it would be a mistake to assume this CORRELATION is CAUSED BY these two factors of crime and churches, either that high crime rates cause increase number of churches or that increase number of churches cause high crime rates. The truth, of course, is that both factors “crime rates” and “number of churches” are tied to a third factor: overall population in a given area.
That third factor is the causal factor in this case. Having a higher number of people will cause more crime, and cause more churches to be build, all other things being equal. But of course each individual instance of crime and each individual church has its own specific, real causes for why and how it is the case.
I think you’re being disingenuous here, contrarian, and not explaining your points very well.
Yeah, I know what a first cause is. I am suggesting just that. There could even be uncaused events that don’t cause anything else. I’m not convinced that the only relationship to the past is through causation. “Relationship” is kind of an open-ended concept.
I am not suggesting that there must be a first cause. i am stating that determinism must account for why there may not have been. Are we to accept that a determined universe came into being randomly? This could of course have happened. I agree that time and space may be beginningless and endless. I’m not sure how that fits in with determinism.
To be clear, my sole point is that causation is a very good description of a lot that we observe. I see no reason why it’s the only description that is useful. The concept of “event” is arbitrary with respect to time and space, anyway, which is consistent with your comments about discrete causes.
wyld - We surely all can come up with examples of events that we do not know the cause of. That does not mean that they are uncaused, but it doesn’t help the case for universal causation. There are surely events that do not appear to be caused. Again, my beef is not with causation per se, but with the notion that every event is pre-determined. Here’s the reason. For any event that we name “an event,” we decide just what the event is. Take a rockslide, for example. When does it begin and when does it end? It’s pretty much when we say it does. Without delineating just what the event is, we cannot decide on a cause.
What I am saying is that we reason backwards to find a cause. I am also saying that it requires a hasty generalization to move from examples that we all agree are cause and effect to a predetermined universe. Doesn’t make you wrong - i have only asked you to defend an assumption or two. We all make assumptions.
The notion of “self-causation” implies that every event has a cause. That’s viciously circular. My point is about your claim that we all become incoherent the minute we abandon universal causation. Mathematics is a closed system, and yes, entirely definitional. But it still allows for reasoning.
You may have that need. i do not.
That we can ask does not imply that there is an answer.
That is entirely untrue. It’s not even arguable.
If only it were all that simple.
I’m not sure that questioning your assumptions is exactly contrarian. I haven’t even started to attack your conclusions. But that is simply not my point here. I often don;t explain my points very well. But don’t take that personally. I don’t care what you believe. I care about the validity of arguments and about undefended assumptions that readers are expected to take as immutable fact. And other technical stuff like that.
In general I like your arguments in this thread. I just found a couple of the things you said to be confusing. I’ll have to spend a few months considering the possibility of the existence of uncaused causes…
Hi, by the way. Hope you’ve been well.
The universe has always existed. It is mathematically provable (to philosophers anyway).
Useful for what? Any predictive issues require causality everywhere, not merely in random places.