This is nonsensical, KtS. If it’s a First Cause it must be, logically, an Agent.
That’s what a cause is–that which stimulates agency.
I disagree, obviously, that the “first cause” or “creator” or whatever you want to call it must be an agent. I’m used to disagreeing with believers about this and it being a matter of conflicting intuitions, and I was ready to write this off as the same, but you said that it “must, logically” be an agent. Why is that? I hope it’s not just because you’ve baked agency into your definition of the word “cause”; I do not accept that definition.
It may be pattern-breaking (arguable, but conceded for the discussion here), but it is, of course, necessary in order to explain creatio et nihilo.
Another reason to reject the idea of creatio ex nihilo, in my opinion.
And science has already pretty much achieved consensus on the universe’s beginnings.
To an extent, yes, but I’m curious how you’d characterize that consensus since whatever consensus there is doesn’t support theism over and above naturalism. It’s sadly common for some apologists to mischaracterize scientific findings from science to make it appear to support theism. William Lane Craig does this a lot, and various scientists have criticized him for it (you can check out his debate with Sean Carroll for some examples).
How does it violate that? confused
This is probably another case that just boils down to conflicting intuitions, so if you don’t see it already I’m not sure I’d be able to explain it sufficiently. The idea of something suddenly popping to existence literally from absolute nothingness is absurd to me; the idea of something popping into existence from absolute nothingness because a powerful incorporeal agent thought/willed/commanded it into existence is simply equally absurd.
A somewhat crude way I’ve heard it put is this: “Saying that ex nihilo creation of concrete objects is possible with enough power is like saying that barfing up a missed lunch is possible with a sufficiently strenuous dry heave.”
And if you don’t believe something came from nothing, then you’re stuck with explaining how the universe began without a Creator.
As I said, I think that something always existed, and I don’t think that thing is/was a person.
What would an example of supernatural forces in the world look like to you?
For example, I have a brother who is a believer in what I perhaps uncharitably refer to as “magic rocks.” He thinks that certain crystals give off energy that can effect mood, health, whatever, and that he can sense the energy coming from these crystals. I can devise some experiments that would tell if he was onto something or if, as I suspect, it’s just psychological. Let’s say he did pass the test; if there really is some kind of energy coming from the crystals, it’s either natural or supernatural. If it’s natural, then we should be able to detect it and fit it in to our current understanding of physics. If we couldn’t do that, I’d say it was supernatural.
I’d also be convinced by something like somebody praying for me and my eyesight or teeth being immediately fixed. I know there are stories out there of stuff like that happening, but the stories have not been convincing.
This is, ironically, a statement of faith.
I’m puzzled by this. I can think of some definitions of the word “faith” that would make this true, but then it would become so trivial that I wouldn’t understand why you think it’s ironic. So I’m not really sure what you’re getting at (unless you’re thinking that just because I didn’t offer a defense of that statement, I don’t have one and have chosen to believe it without evidence. If that’s the case, you would be incorrect).
What’s your explanation for the empty tomb?
I don’t really need one because I don’t take the historicity of the empty tomb as a given.
Gary Habermas is the only person I know of to do any real legwork to try to establish “expert” (he appears to use that term rather broadly) consensus regarding events surrounding the Resurrection. His methodology of doing this is flawed in several ways, many of which would actually tip the results in favor of historicity, but even so, his own numbers show that only 70-75% of his “experts” believe in the empty tomb (or that 25-30% reject it; it’s not really clear from the way that he’s talked about these things where he’s counting the agnostics). That’s not a consensus, and even he admits to that. I think there’s reason to doubt that there was an empty tomb.
