First Cause

[coolduude]

Hi all,

First I want to apologize if this thread violates the ban regarding atheism and such. Please don’t ban me if that’s the case!

Ok, in a nut shell, this is the First Cause Argument (for God’s existence):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

And a link to a good article on this:
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

(please read it all)

So, if anyone has objections to this argument, please say so. I want to hear it

And if this does violate the ban, let me know and this thread can be left to die until the ban is lifted.

Thank you,
coolduude

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sounds good to me. Some will object to the first premise, because we have no direct knowledge of any (simple) thing ever beginning to exist. But the premise seems awfully plausible, nonetheless.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hi all,

First I want to apologize if this thread violates the ban regarding atheism and such. Please don’t ban me if that’s the case!

Ok, in a nut shell, this is the First Cause Argument (for God’s existence):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

And a link to a good article on this:
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

(please read it all)

So, if anyone has objections to this argument, please say so. I want to hear it

And if this does violate the ban, let me know and this thread can be left to die until the ban is lifted.

Thank you,
coolduude

I don’t necessarily disagree with this argument, my being a Thomist and all that, but i am going to challenge you anyway. The following is the best i could do in respect of forming a cogent rebuttal.

Firstly, not enough information is given in the premise to exclude all other possibilities. Its too simplistic. While all the premises follow correctly given the principle that out of nothing comes nothing, the conclusion does not show necessarily that the first cause of the universe is the ultimate first cause. There may very well be a multi-verse beyond the alpha point of this particular space time ad - infinitum. In which case, saying that our region of space-time had a beginning, does not do much in the way of proving that all space time began with our particular universe. Also, what about energy? According to science, it cannot be destroyed or created, and so perhaps that’s the first cause. In order for your argument to work, it has to exclude all physical possibilities accept for God in order to work. Can you disprove that an infinite series existed before this point in time? Can you show that the first cause is not physical?

Secondly, *if *you can defeat the above arguments, then you have no reason to doubt the existence of the “supernatural”; but then what reason is there to believe that this supernatural entity corresponds to the divine intellect and will we understand to be God? Why one God instead of many? Given these problems, I don’t believe that your argument is strong enough to prove the existence of God simply because it is not evident me that it takes into account all the factors that i have mentioned above. . You might say that God is more probable, but what reason is there to think that this is true?

 

[dusza]

… Also, what about energy? According to science, it cannot be destroyed or created, and so perhaps that’s the first cause.

That’s because God “caused” it [laws of physics] to be so.
Thinking logically about God is tempting but ultimately will end in frustration either by denying His existence, relying on faith, or settling for numbing lukewarmness of agnosticism. If He wanted us to find him using our reason, He would have revealed Himself quite differently than He did.

God showed Himself to us and even many of the most intelligent simply say “nah, that doesn’t make sense”. That is correct, it doesn’t and we’ll spend all eternity trying to comprehend it. After all, it’s not the smartest who are canonized, but the humblest.

 

[hatsoff]

Hi all,

First I want to apologize if this thread violates the ban regarding atheism and such. Please don’t ban me if that’s the case!

Ok, in a nut shell, this is the First Cause Argument (for God’s existence):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

And a link to a good article on this:
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

(please read it all)

So, if anyone has objections to this argument, please say so. I want to hear it

And if this does violate the ban, let me know and this thread can be left to die until the ban is lifted.

I didn’t read the article in the link, but I’m familiar with the Kalam cosmological argument already, so I’ll go ahead and jump right into the commentary…

Obviously, (3) follows from (1) and (2). So, we are faced with at least three important questions: first, what exactly is causation, outside the context of space and time? I for one haven’t the foggiest idea to what one might be referring when one discusses divine causation. Until we define our terms, we cannot discuss the truth or falsity of the premises using them.

Secondly, we must ask whether we ought to think (1) and (2) are true. We can only deal with (1) once we’ve established what in the world is meant by causation. As for (2), it’s fairly reasonable to suppose the universe (or multiverse, if you like) might have had a beginning. The big bang model has a beginning, for instance. But did it have a beginning? At the moment, no one knows whether that is so.

Third, and finally, if we do decide that the universe had a cause, whatever that might mean, what if anything can we do with such a conclusion? Craig, Sinclair and Swinburne have all suggested that the alleged cause can only be a supernatural creator-deity, i.e. God, but many philosophers (and this undergrad) remain unconvinced, finding significant flaws in their arguments.

So, in sum, the Kalam cosmological argument has some pretty serious issues.

 

[VonDerTann]

Sorry, hatsoff, you are not escaping that easily

“Obviously, (3) follows from (1) and (2).”
-Agreed.

“So, we are faced with at least three important questions: first, what exactly is causation, outside the context of space and time?”
–Causation is just that…cause. Adding the bit about space and time just confuses the matter.

“Until we define our terms, we cannot discuss the truth or falsity of the premises using them.”
–Okay, define them for us. If you want to get technical, why can’t we use G.E. More’s commonsense realism? Pointing to an IBM computer and saying, “that’s an IBM computer” is a hard thing to argue with. Saying what causation is the same: It’s the source of something else. Your failing to define terms does not allow you to say, “we need to define terms!”

“Secondly, we must ask whether we ought to think (1) and (2) are true. We can only deal with (1) once we’ve established what in the world is meant by causation.”
–I’ve defined it. If you disagree, tell us why.
–Okay, we’ve established causation is the ‘cause of something.’ So go to #2.

“As for (2), it’s fairly reasonable to suppose the universe (or multiverse, if you like) might have had a beginning. The big bang model has a beginning, for instance. But did it have a beginning? At the moment, no one knows whether that is so.”
–Until you can show us a basis to conclude that it did not have a beginning, we must conclude by its existence that it had a beginning.

“Third, and finally, if we do decide that the universe had a cause, whatever that might mean,what if anything can we do with such a conclusion?”
–We can use it to prove God exists.

“Craig, Sinclair and Swinburne have all suggested that the alleged cause can only be a supernatural creator-deity, i.e. God, but many philosophers (and this undergrad) remain unconvinced, finding significant flaws in their arguments.”
–As to ‘many philosphers,’ who? What were their arguments?
–As to your being are unconvinced, why? You already admitted that the conclusion follows if you accept the premises. So why do you not accept the premises?

“So, in sum, the Kalam cosmological argument has some pretty serious issues.”
–What issues? And why are they ‘serious?’ The fact that you are unconvinced does not mean the argument has ‘serious issues’ (because, IMHO, it doesn’t; it is instead a very compelling argument that God exists.

–VdT

 

[James_S_Saint]

The universe has a cause, but NEVER began. Thus the argument fails due to premise (2).

 

[hatsoff]

Causation is just that…cause. Adding the bit about space and time just confuses the matter.

“Cause” is not exactly a helpful definition for “causation.” Can you provide one which does not depend on space or time?

Okay, define them for us. If you want to get technical, why can’t we use G.E. More’s commonsense realism? Pointing to an IBM computer and saying, “that’s an IBM computer” is a hard thing to argue with. Saying what causation is the same: It’s the source of something else. Your failing to define terms does not allow you to say, “we need to define terms!”

I’m fine with using our experience to define terms, but causing universes isn’t something to which I can point.

I’ve defined it. If you disagree, tell us why.
–Okay, we’ve established causation is the ‘cause of something.’ So go to #2.

Again, “cause of something” is an unhelpful definition of “causation.”

Until you can show us a basis to conclude that it did not have a beginning, we must conclude by its existence that it had a beginning.

Why must we do that?

We can use it to prove God exists.

Well, that seems to be the motivation behind Kalam, but of course “God exists” does not simply follow from the conclusion. Another argument is required.

As to ‘many philosphers,’ who? What were their arguments?

Wes Morriston comes to mind, and of course any non-theist philosopher familiar with their work must not agree! However, the most memorable criticism for me was Nicholas Everitt, who remarked succinctly that “every step in this remarkable argument is mistaken” (source).

–As to your being are unconvinced, why? You already admitted that the conclusion follows if you accept the premises. So why do you not accept the premises?

I have no reason to accept premise (2), and I don’t find premise (1) intelligible.

–What issues? And why are they ‘serious?’ The fact that you are unconvinced does not mean the argument has ‘serious issues’ (because, IMHO, it doesn’t; it is instead a very compelling argument that God exists.

The lack of warrant for premise (2) and the lack of meaning for premise (1) seem like serious issues to me, not to mention the problems with the actual God arguments which augment the core of Kalam (and which admittedly I have not explored yet, since there’s really no need).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The universe has a cause, but NEVER began. Thus the argument fails due to premise (2).

You have said this but have failed to prove it in any way.

If something has always existed then it can not have been caused.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You have said this but have failed to prove it in any way.

If something has always existed then it can not have been caused.

I need not prove my assertion. The proposed proof must prove my assertion false, else it leaves doubt. As the assertion of the universe having had a beginning was a premise, it must be something acceptable without doubt. I have reasonable doubt, with or without proof.

Your second statement is the common fallacy. The universe has always existed because it has always had a cause. That cause is what we call “God”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I need not prove my assertion. The proposed proof must prove my assertion false, else it leaves doubt. As the assertion of the universe having had a beginning was a premise, it must be something acceptable without doubt. I have reasonable doubt, with or without proof.

I would say you are wrong when most philosophers and many scientists believe in the big bag, which is the beginning of the universe.

Your second statement is the common fallacy. The universe has always existed because it has always had a cause. That cause is what we call “God”.

If the universe is co-eternal with God then it is God. A cause comes before an effect, another thing you seem to not believe in yet fail to prove.

 

[coolduude]

So you agree there is a God?

And also, how do you account for the lack of evidence for a universe over 14 billion years ago?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I would say you are wrong when most philosophers and many scientists believe in the big bag, which is the beginning of the universe.

“Most Scientists” have believed in many things that were false. They know that. Many learned that the early speculation of the Big Bang being a singularity was necessarily false. I am curious why SO many religious people have accepted scientists as their prophets.

If the universe is co-eternal with God then it is God. A cause comes before an effect, another thing you seem to not believe in yet fail to prove.

That is false. God can create an eternal thing without being challenged for superiority. The Cause does not mean a time event, but a REASON. God is the reason that the universe exists. That reason for its existence has always existed and that is why the universe has always existed, because it always had God to ensure it.

The existence of straightness is what causes the existence of a curve. But the straightness did not bend the curve after the curve was manifest. Without straightness there could be no curve. Without the perfect, there could be no imperfect.

Ref: God is the Reason, not the Instigation.

So you agree there is a God?

And also, how do you account for the lack of evidence for a universe over 14 billion years ago?

If you are talking to me, I most certainly believe in God. The counter proposal is sheer idiocy.

I have explained this several times on this forum. It isn’t a short story, but the bottom line is that the Big Bang effect was merely AN occurrence that began the current spread of mass into what we now call our universe. The speculation that absolutely nothing existed before that point is sheer childish narrow mindedness. “We can’t see anything before that point, THEREFORE nothing existed.”

For the longer version; ref; Fall of the Perfect Pendulum

 

[coolduude]

So basically you’re saying that God merely began the expansion of the universe? Which is most commonly called the Big Bang (correct?)

So if you think something did exist c. 15 billion years ago, what do you think it is? Do you believe we are but one of hundreds of thousands of multiverses?

 

[James_S_Saint]

So basically you’re saying that God merely began the expansion of the universe? Which is most commonly called the Big Bang (correct?)

So if you think something did exist c. 15 billion years ago, what do you think it is? Do you believe we are but one of hundreds of thousands of multiverses?

I would hesitate using the word “began”, but basically, yes, what we now see as the universe certainly began expanding from a central location outward (assuming scientists have not been deceived (again)).

I explained this in that Pendulum thread, but our universe is most probably only one of an infinite number (and growing) of “universes” (although that term would not really be correct). Those universes or “gatherings of mass” come and go and in different locations throughout infinite space. Like rain drops falling onto the ocean surface and making splashes although the universes have possible opportunity to become stable and thus no longer fading into entropy. This would result in a collection of more and more stable, not fading, universes isolated from each other and never perishing, like grains of sand in an endless desert. One necessarily could never see another universe, stable or not, due to how light plays into the picture. Far distant from every universe is most probably another. It is a mathematical certainty.

 

[VonDerTann]

James S. Saint:

You write, “I explained this in that Pendulum thread, but our universe is most probably only one of an infinite number (and growing) of “universes” (although that term would not really be correct).”
–You offer no proof of any of this.

“Those universes or “gatherings of mass” come and go and in different locations throughout infinite space.”
–You offer no proof that space is infinite.
–You offer no proof of any such ‘gatherings of mass.’
–You offer no proof that they ‘come and go’ if you can prove they exist in the first place.

“Like rain drops falling onto the ocean surfaceand making splashes although the universes have possible opportunity to become stable and thus no longer fading into entropy. This would result in a collection of more and more stable, not fading, universes isolated from each other and never perishing, like grains of sand in an endless desert.”
–You offer no proof of any of this.

“One necessarily could never see another universe, stable or not, due to how light plays into the picture.”
–You are acknowleding that you cannot offer proof for your other statements.

“Far distant from every universe is most probably another.”
–How far? You don’t say. Why not?
–On what do you base your ‘probablility?’ And what ‘probability’ is it? 0.1% likely? 51%? 99.9%? Come now, you can’t offer a shred of proof for any of this.

“It is a mathematical certainty.”
–According to who? And whose math? If you want to do the math for us, enlighten us, please. I’d say you will find it a challenge.

 

[AlbertBall]

“We can’t see anything before that point, THEREFORE nothing existed.”

This is not the general consensis of the scientific community.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I never claimed any proof for anything. You haven’t proven that you are you either. Someone asked for my opinion or theory. I gave it.

As long as there is a plausible theory, the idea that “nothing else could explain…” cannot be accepted in any proposed proof.

As far as the math. It is a simple issue of an infinite space and the probability of anything being within it. The fact that something has occurred within this space gives us the definite possibility of physical existence. Thus given an infinite amount of more space, the fact that something occurred in one space gives us a near infinite probability that it would occur again within that infinite space. This is not any evidence against God at all. It is merely probability concerning how big God’s universe is - much bigger than we can see or even conceive (or will ever be able to see).

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is not the general consensis of the scientific community.

That is the very foundation of the Quantum Magi, string theory, uncertainty, and “possible world theory” (“if we can’t see that it isn’t, then it could be any of an infinite possibility - logic not required”). Every issue is based on what a scientist can or can’t see - rational thought not required.

 

[AlbertBall]

That is the very foundation of the Quantum Magi, string theory, uncertainty, and “possible world theory” (“if we can’t see that it isn’t, then it could be any of an infinite possibility - logic not required”). Every issue is based on what a scientist can or can’t see - rational thought not required.

String theory is not a universally accepted scientific theory, Hence why i said** “general consensus”**.

Can you see electrons?