J
JDaniel
Guest
Merry:
Um, YES. In the absence of an apriori cause of the big bang, then it must be self-caused, precisely because the universe exists.
JD
- Status
Um, YES. In the absence of an apriori cause of the big bang, then it must be self-caused, precisely because the universe exists.
JD
J
JDaniel
Guest
Peregrino:
And likewise!
I see that your handle is more than a name, it’s an implication.
JD
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
What you call “word games” are, in my view, sincere attempts at gaining some measure of understanding. You can’t expect anyone, - much less this ignorant atheist - to pursue dialogue if you are unwilling to explain what you mean.i am asking for arguments against first cause, so far none have been offered, we are only talking about what words mean. thats why i use the common definiton.
don’t be offended, but this does go to my post in that we are already devolving into word games, next come names calling
Nevertheless, I will attempt to back up and offer my personal reasons why the First Cause argument is unpersuasive to me, in the interest of continued discussion…
- The First Cause argument stops too soon. Why is God the termination to the regress? Why is God the exception to the chain of causality? It’s also possible that something caused that which caused the universe. Maybe this God is a minor God, created by greater Gods, who were also created by greater Gods still, and so on. Or maybe this God who caused our universe is the result of billions of years (in an alternate time-space continuum, of course) of evolution of divine creatures that started out sort of small and unremarkable, like field mice in some cosmic uber-dimension. Hey, if we’re going to make assumptions about things we can’t know, we may as well dream big.
- The First Cause argument assumes too much. Maybe the universe was simply inevitable, just one of many possible universes, or one out of dozens, thousands, or millions of existing universes.
- The First Cause argument assumes that God exists. Why does the universe need a conscious creator? Believers assume that the First Cause is an intentional, conscious entity because such an idea fits their theology, but it is just as likely (if not more so) that impersonal, uncaring forces caused the universe.
- The First Cause argument is conjecture built on assumptions without proof. We simply do not know what happened prior to the Big Bang; this is an inarguable fact. The only people who claim to know do so as a statement of faith.
- The universe may simply be an unexplainable brute fact. The First Cause argument, since it is built upon the assumption that God exists, and attempts to answer unanswerable questions, posits God as the ultimate reality. But it is also possible that no God exists, and that the only ultimate reality is the universe itself.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
I always get a little chuckle out of the whole First Cause argument, regardless of how absurd it appears to me upon careful analysis for some of the reasons Merry listed.
If such was the case, I have a hard time picturing ‘God’ as being some all-good, all-powerful entity so much as I get an image of a bunch of pretty bright grad students working to prop up their prof’s lagging tenure, making a ‘universe’ that actually HAS some stabile-ish constants and works pretty well, then looking closer and thinking 'Uhh…oh…oh dear, ummm…" then stuffing the whole thing in a welded vault and making a pact to 'just not mention this, shall we? Eheh.
"
If such was the case, I have a hard time picturing ‘God’ as being some all-good, all-powerful entity so much as I get an image of a bunch of pretty bright grad students working to prop up their prof’s lagging tenure, making a ‘universe’ that actually HAS some stabile-ish constants and works pretty well, then looking closer and thinking 'Uhh…oh…oh dear, ummm…" then stuffing the whole thing in a welded vault and making a pact to 'just not mention this, shall we? Eheh.
"
P
Peregrino
Guest
Nice illustration. Too funny!I always get a little chuckle out of the whole First Cause argument, regardless of how absurd it appears to me upon careful analysis for some of the reasons Merry listed.
If such was the case, I have a hard time picturing ‘God’ as being some all-good, all-powerful entity so much as I get an image of a bunch of pretty bright grad students working to prop up their prof’s lagging tenure, making a ‘universe’ that actually HAS some stabile-ish constants and works pretty well, then looking closer and thinking 'Uhh…oh…oh dear, ummm…" then stuffing the whole thing in a welded vault and making a pact to 'just not mention this, shall we? Eheh.
P
Peregrino
Guest
Actually it is more of a vocation…
P
Peregrino
Guest
Is the requirement of a “first cause” itself a priori? Perhaps a priori is a relative term for you; what is a priori for some is not a priori for you. Good luck.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
excellent! this is what i am looking for
i will address these in the order you listed
- you are correct, if the chain of causality were infinite, then G-d would be no better a stopping point in the regression than anything else. however, there are no existent infinities that i know, of. so an actual regression must have a terminus in order to correspond with what we know of the observable universe. maybe we could consider this as one of the attributes of G-d, lets see where the argument leads.
- as too the idea that this universe was inevitable, no matter how many universes there were, i would say that such an argument requires a first cause. thereby negating itself as an argument against first cause.
- im not sure that the first cause argument can be construed as assuming there is a G-d. we can talk more about this one.
i think this line of reasoning may be appropriate for the next thread per post #7
- this one isn’t really an argument against first cause as it is an assertion about the nature of the argument, and i might reply that first cause is based on solid logical reasoning. that is neither here nor there so to speak.
the point is indeed still in contention.
- it would seem odd to me if the universe itself was just a brute fact, as accepted science is currently positing that the first cause of the universe was the ‘big bang’
nor do i believe that it attempts to answer an unanswerable question any more than the idea that flight was impossible until wilbur and orville did it, it is merely a matter of determination and
ingenuity
further since accepted science implicitly posits that the first cause was the big bang, the argument that the universe is itself the ultimate reality is not in accordance with the chain of causality that we see through out the observable universe. any argument of this nature that denies the scientifically accepted universe must on its face be false.
you have some excellent arguments, that we can further explore, but some of your points are assertions about the arguments merit rather than the denials of first cause that i am seeking, i want to keep the arguments as clear and simple as possible
thank you
i hope to hear more from you. thanks
J
JDaniel
Guest
I
ilovekittens
Guest
I think the best argument against a “prime mover” is that such an argument invokes the supernatural - God - in trying to explain an apparently natural phenomenon, the origin of the universe. All of science is based on trying to understand natural phenomena and the natural processes which cause them. Certainly, right now, we don’t understand the origin of the universe, and because of the nature of the issue and the limits of our own intelligence, perhaps we may never fully know the answer to this question. But to say, “I can’t imagine how the universe came into being, therefore a supernatural force must be responsible,” is awfully simple-minded - not far removed from “intelligent design” and really not far removed from primitive man, who would see lightning in the sky and not imagine how such a phenomenon could occur without a supernatural god at work.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
the first cause argument follows a chain of causality based on observations of the natural world, it is not a guess, it is a logical argument.
I
ilovekittens
Guest
Still, it invokes the supernatural; one follows the chain of natural casuality to the known beginning and then makes a jump to the supernatural. The assumption should rather be that there is a natural explanation, even if we don’t know what that explanation is at this point.the first cause argument follows a chain of causality based on observations of the natural world, it is not a guess, it is a logical argument.
F
Fran65
Guest
I
ilovekittens
Guest
Maybe; the natural origin of the natural phenomenon which is our universe is unknown.
D
davidv
Guest
Which is the only answer, today, that “reason alone”, can provide. Another source, Divine Revelation, gives us more information. This revelation, however does not answer the “how” question. This question is left for reason to answer. Revelation answers “what?” and “why?”
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
there is no jump so to speak but its a long argument,
please see the thread 'is the “i dont know” argument valid?"
please post arguments against first cause, assertions are fine but i am looking for arguments or evidence that disprove the first cause argument
p.s. i have 3 kittens, how much do you love them?
i am fixing to eat the next one that climbs up my leg!
you might be their only hope!
I
ilovekittens
Guest
That is right.
I
ilovekittens
Guest
Summarize for me how there is not a jump to the supernatural.there is no jump so to speak but its a long argument,
please see the thread 'is the “i dont know” argument valid?"
please post arguments against first cause, assertions are fine but i am looking for arguments or evidence that disprove the first cause argument
p.s. i have 3 kittens, how much do you love them?
i am fixing to eat the next one that climbs up my leg!
you might be their only hope!
If you have to invoke the supernatural to explain a natural phenomenon, then the better answer is “we don’t know yet.” That is my argument.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
here is the OP, i dont have time to repeat it all sorry?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=282105
yes that is your argument, but its an assertion about better possibilities, not about the first cause itself
if you have such an argument please post it
J
JDaniel
Guest
“Word games” is the hiding place of the scoundrel. It’s where one goes, when one knows he is, or is about to be, beaten or defeated. It is the place an angry person goes to try to hide from readers who have already “outed” him, but, were not compelled to reply to drivel.
Answer to your #1: Either the “chain of efficient causality is finite, or it is infinite. Agreed?
An inspection of “infinity” in mathematics provides this:
In mathematics, “infinity” is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: “an infinite number of terms”) but it is a different type of “number” from the real numbers. Infinity is related to limits, aleph numbers, classes in set theory, Dedekind-infinite sets, large cardinals, Russell’s paradox, non-standard arithmetic, hyperreal numbers, projective geometry, extended real numbers and the absolute Infinite. - Wikipedia
So, in quantum mathematics, either a category of numbers is “finite” or it is “finite”. We can, in some manner, conceive of an “infinity”, but, one cannot exist (with the exception of an “Absolute Infinity”). Infinity, within our conception is merely an order of “transfinite” numbers that is in the process of forever expanding, either adding numbers to it, or subtracting numbers from it. It “exists”, in the widest sense of the word, in mathematics only in this way and as a mental construct, but, not in the universe’s reality.
I submit to you that you have it completely backwards. First Cause was not posited to handle regression, it was observed as an unassailable outcome of the extant universe.
The rest of your paragraph is irrelevantly senseless.
Answer to #2: Additional senselessness. See above.
Answer to #3: The First Cause argument does not “assume that God exists. God is the name we give to the outcome of correctly observing the universe, the chain of efficient causality, and the necessary logic, i.e., mental computations. Thus, He is first the observed and logical outcome, and then we name Him – in that order.
The rest of your assertions are specious and unfounded. They prove nothing – well almost.
Answer to #4: Again, you have made a few more specious and unfounded assertions without logic or postulates. Do you not see that specious and unfounded assertions DO NOT advance your case? They are merely assertions. Unfounded assertions are the betrayers of dullness.
What’s more, we do know what happened before the big bang. Science says there was a “moment” just prior to its “explosion”, if you will. What science has not figured out is: what was that “moment’s” duration and was the big bang the first event in the order of motion during that moment.
Answer to # 5: More specious and unfounded assertions without logic or postulates. Thus, you have failed to “cast doubt’, which was your intended purpose.
[Edited]
Respectfully (for now),
JD
- Status