Why does the first cause have to be God?

[jonathan_hili]

The potential is in the fuel(wood), oxidising agent (air) and the ignition source (spark) and other issues such as ambient temperature, wind and humidity - where the fuel and air have been around for a while the cause is the spark, alone, the final event that kicks off the effect.

The potential includes far more than the cause, but where the potential exists a tiny cause can have a vast effect. The cause is the thing (allegedly) proven by arguments for a ‘first cause’, potential can have existed eternally without need for an eternal chain of cause and effect and the problems (allegedly) associated with that.

The potential is the cause, that is to say, in the example above, the wood, air, temperature, etc. are all part of the cause, since without one of these aspects, you would not have a “cause”. I don’t see how this affects the “first cause” argument.

That’s just quibbling about where you draw the line. The pebble colliding with the snow causes a chain reaction (including sound reverberations, possibly but not necessarily) resulting in an avalanche.

Sure, it is partly quibbling, I agree. However, it then depends on what specific effect you want to p(name removed by moderator)oint.

 

[DrTaffy]

There is no evidence that any other form of life and rational existence exists in** this universe**. There may well be other entirely different universes but the possibility of their existence has no bearing on the immense improbability of life with the existing laws of nature.

I am now not clear on which argument you are making - that the laws of physics (in this universe) are so perfectly tuned to produce life that this proves the existence of God, or that they are so far from what might be expected to produce life that the existence of life in spite of that can only be due to divine intervention. You really cannot have it both ways.

Either way, if you are presenting an alleged proof of God, it is therefore clearly up to you to meet the burden of proof. The mere possibility of an alternative explanation would mean that your ‘proof’ fails to be a proof.

The facts I have stated are far more significant than unverified theories.

But you haven’t proven any ‘facts’, merely asserted them. If you are just looking for adulation from your fan base, fine, but if you hope to engage with (let alone convince) those who do not share your beliefs, you have to show some evidence.

Also, while the theory formerly known as string theory is strongly supported, if far from proven, John Webb’s results are no ‘unverified theory’ but empirical evidence.

 

[DrTaffy]

The potential is the cause, that is to say, in the example above, the wood, air, temperature, etc. are all part of the cause, since without one of these aspects, you would not have a “cause”.

I strongly disagree - those are all part of the potential, not the cause. Although if you are not differentiating between those that would explain the assertion that a large effect requires a large cause.

I would say that a large effect requires a large potential, not cause - tautologically (if that is a word) if there is no potential for a large effect, no large effect is possible. But a tiny cause can have a huge effect where the potential exists.

Further, cause and potential are fundamentally different categories, although I admit that I have also been guilty of using confusing language about the two. The potential exists in physical objects (e.g. wood, air, snowy slopes) and physical quantities (e.g. temperature or gravity) which are a priori static. The cause is intrinsically dynamic, an event, not a thing. So the cause of the hypothetical avalanche is not the object “the pebble”, but the event of dropping the pebble.

Likewise, the cause of the hypothetical fire is not wood, air or heat but the event, the change in the status quo, that brings all three together where one was previously seperated.

(Uncaused events such as radioactive decay are a different case with a whole different challenge to the first cause argument)

As far as I know everyone agrees that there is nothing logically incoherent about a potential existing for eternity (e.g. a pile of wood in an oxygen atmosphere) but it is claimed that there is some logical bar to a chain of cause and effect going back indefinitely.

This is one of my objections to the ‘first cause’ argument (in the sense of ‘cause and effect’, as opposed to logical cause) - a ‘cause’ in this sense is not a thing, let alone a sentient entity, it is an event. Calling an event ‘God’ seems incompatible with any sensible definition of ‘God’.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no evidence that any other form of life and rational existence exists in** this universe**

It is evidence for the existence of Design as opposed to a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”.

Either way, if you are presenting an alleged proof of God, it is therefore clearly up to you to meet the burden of proof. The mere possibility of an alternative explanation would mean that your ‘proof’ fails to be a proof.

It is** the most reasonable** explanation.

The facts I have stated are far more significant than unverified theories.

But you haven’t proven any ‘facts’, merely asserted them. If you are just looking for adulation from your fan base, fine, but if you hope to engage with (let alone convince) those who do not share your beliefs, you have to show some evidence.

Your sarcasm is unwarranted because I have “no fan base” nor am I just looking for adulation" but simply expressing my opinion - and your assertion reveals more about your character than the nature of reality!

The facts - which you have ignored - are:

1. There is no evidence that any other form of life and rational existence exists in** this universe**.
2. There may well be other entirely different universes but the possibility of their existence has no bearing on the immense improbability of life with the existing laws of nature.

Also, while the theory formerly known as string theory is strongly supported, if far from proven, John Webb’s results are no ‘unverified theory’ but empirical evidence.
Also, given implications from the theory formerly known as string theory that the universe can switch from one potential state to another over time, and empirical evidence that conditions vary over space, is it not reasonable to assume that life only exists in those regions of space time where life can exist?

String theory may or may not be strongly supported but it certainly doesn’t verify the hypothesis that life is a common occurrence in this universe nor does it verify the hypothesis that anything is possible - which is a desperate ploy to evade the validity of arguments based on probability.

You have also failed to disprove the following facts:

1. Evolution does not explain the origin of life nor the increase in complexity.
2. There is no evidence that physical reality popped into existence by itself.
3. There is no evidence that physical reality has always existed.
4. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sum total of reality.
5. There is no evidence that purposeless particles can produce rational persons.
6. One Supreme Being is a more economical, rational, intelligible, coherent and fertile explanation than a vast number of quanta of energy which haven’t the slightest notion of what they are doing and are devoid of self-control, hindsight, insight and foresight, appreciation of beauty or capacity for love.

 

[AgnosticNut]

There are two arguments I see used to support this. The first argument William Lane Craig defends, goes like this:

“If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? … The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time.” - William Lane Craig

The problem with this should seem obvious. God’s thought of “let there be a universe” is sufficient for the universe to exist if theism is true. This means, that the same argument applies to God, even if he has free will. So, if Crag can argue:

“If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity?” - William Lane Craig

Then I can argue:

“If God’s thought of “let there be a universe!” existed from eternity, when why would the effect not also exist from eternity?”

The second argument William Lane Craig defends, goes like this:

“1. Either the cause of the universe is an abstract object or the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind.
2. The cause of the universe is not an abstract object.
3. Therefore, the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind.” - William Lane Craig

Premise 1 has not been supported as a true dichotomy. It’s only defense is a fallacious argument from ignorance, claiming that these are the only things we “know of” that are immaterial/ non-physical.

Since these are the only two arguments I really see thrown around, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I strongly disagree - those are all part of the potential, not the cause. Although if you are not differentiating between those that would explain the assertion that a large effect requires a large cause.

I would say that a large effect requires a large potential, not cause - tautologically (if that is a word) if there is no potential for a large effect, no large effect is possible. But a tiny cause can have a huge effect where the potential exists.

Further, cause and potential are fundamentally different categories, although I admit that I have also been guilty of using confusing language about the two. The potential exists in physical objects (e.g. wood, air, snowy slopes) and physical quantities (e.g. temperature or gravity) which are a priori static. The cause is intrinsically dynamic, an event, not a thing. So the cause of the hypothetical avalanche is not the object “the pebble”, but the event of dropping the pebble.

Likewise, the cause of the hypothetical fire is not wood, air or heat but the event, the change in the status quo, that brings all three together where one was previously seperated.

(Uncaused events such as radioactive decay are a different case with a whole different challenge to the first cause argument)

As far as I know everyone agrees that there is nothing logically incoherent about a potential existing for eternity (e.g. a pile of wood in an oxygen atmosphere) but it is claimed that there is some logical bar to a chain of cause and effect going back indefinitely.

This is one of my objections to the ‘first cause’ argument (in the sense of ‘cause and effect’, as opposed to logical cause) - a ‘cause’ in this sense is not a thing, let alone a sentient entity, it is an event. Calling an event ‘God’ seems incompatible with any sensible definition of ‘God’.

I get what you’re saying, Doc, but I still can’t see how the potential is not part of the cause. But then I’m looking at cause in a holistic way. For example, what caused the French Revolution to break out in 1789. A simple explanation would be the failed Estates General and revolting action of the Third Estate to form a National Assembly. However, historians will generally point to many factors as being part of the “cause”: the dissatisfaction of a part of the nobility, failed crops and higher bread prices the previous year, massive debt, etc. I guess you could look at these factors as the “potential” too.

I agree, there is that category distinction. But again, even if the “cause” was “dropping the pebble”, why couldn’t this be expanded to “dropping the pebble” + “the climactic conditions” + etc.?

Now, with regards to the first cause argument, the argument actually doesn’t prove or attempt to prove that “God” is the cause but that there must be a first cause, and this first cause was initiated by some X (let’s say “potential”) that was itself uncaused. This potential is identified as God, but I guess you could argue it’s not. It’s just that it’s difficult to understand how it could not be something like God.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Then I can argue:

“If God’s thought of “let there be a universe!” existed from eternity, when why would the effect not also exist from eternity?”

But before the existence of the universe, there was no time. If you are thinking of eternity as “always, never-beginning, never-ending time”, then that’s incorrect. To say, "God was thinking “Let there be a universe” from eternity, doesn’t mean He did so in time. Therefore, the effect need not be eternal.

The second argument William Lane Craig defends, goes like this:

“1. Either the cause of the universe is an abstract object or the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind.
2. The cause of the universe is not an abstract object.
3. Therefore, the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind.” - William Lane Craig

Premise 1 has not been supported as a true dichotomy. It’s only defense is a fallacious argument from ignorance, claiming that these are the only things we “know of” that are immaterial/ non-physical.

Since these are the only two arguments I really see thrown around, I’ll leave it at that.

I agree, that premise one could be extended. But how? I mean, you might suggest it relies on our ignorance, but even with what we know now, it’s difficult to see how something other than an abstract object (which doesn’t matter but does require mind) or an unembodied mind could exist in a non-material (non-spatial and non-temporal) reality? It might not be a true dichotomy but have you any suggestions as to what an alternative might be?

 

[frankbeenaround]

^

Like the Hindus and Buddhists, I have no problem with an infinite regress of causes, worlds and ages. It seems to me the “beginning” in Genesis can be happening still, moment by moment. Genesis is a story of mind, spirit, consciousness and self-consciousness, told as literature. It isn’t science, or even reason as we conceive it.

Peace,

~ Frank

 

[PJM]

=YosefYosep;10617404]To me there is no doubt that there is a first cause instead of an infinite regress, but why does this cause have to be an intelligent, personal, and loving God?

Great question:

The answer rest in why the Universe and man himself exist.

Man exist, as the ONLY Created thing able to Know, love, Obey and serve out God.

ISAIAH 43: 7 & 21
[7] And every one that calleth upon my name, I have created him for my glory, I have formed him, and made him… [21] This people have I formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise”

The Universe exist as a “grace” to enable every man to accomplish, by freewill choice; the purpose of mans existence.

Because man ALONE of all created thing is capable of loveing; that then is man’s untimate purpose as it relates to our Creator. And man ALONE can and does emulate our God. We alone have a mind, intellect, and freewill attached to our souls. Like God these ARE “spiritual realities.”

Tey to quantify your freewill for example. What is its size, shape, color and weight? Can’t be done but ONLY the VERY foolish who claim it does not exist. So simialr to Our God; Humanity has both a physical body and a eternal- spiritual [like God has] attributes.“like” but not a duplicate in power and majesity.

Man and the Univerese exist soley FOR GOD! And that is why it had too [has too] be Created by a Loving God.

 

[Ismael]

“If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity?” - William Lane Craig

Then I can argue:

“If God’s thought of “let there be a universe!” existed from eternity, when why would the effect not also exist from eternity?”
QUOTE]

An ‘eternal’ or rather ‘ever existing universe’ would not have troubled Aquinas.

Aquinas thought he could not prove philosophically the universe had a beginning. Of course had he known what Newton had, he could have (Susskind in a laecture on Cosmology provided that from Newton one can argue for the Big Bang, at least tentatively)

So Aquinas does not base his arguments on temporal beginnings, unlike the Kalaam argument used by Craig.

Since these are the only two arguments I really see thrown around, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[AgnosticNut]

But before the existence of the universe, there was no time.

That’s a logically contradictory statement. “Was” is a past tense, how could there have been no time, in the past?

If you are thinking of eternity as “always, never-beginning, never-ending time”, then that’s incorrect. To say, "God was thinking “Let there be a universe” from eternity, doesn’t mean He did so in time. Therefore, the effect need not be eternal.

His thought of “let there be a universe” would be non-temporally eternal, so my rebuttal still stands.

I agree, that premise one could be extended. But how? I mean, you might suggest it relies on our ignorance, but even with what we know now, it’s difficult to see how something other than an abstract object (which doesn’t matter but does require mind) or an unembodied mind could exist in a non-material (non-spatial and non-temporal) reality?

Difficult for you maybe, not to me.

It might not be a true dichotomy but have you any suggestions as to what an alternative might be?

This is switching the burden of proof. If someone is arguing that God must be the cause, they have to show why it’s a true dichotomy. I don’t have to show other options. However, another option could be a non-physical/ immaterial pre-universe. It could be anything.

 

[AgnosticNut]

“If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity?” - William Lane Craig

Then I can argue:

“If God’s thought of “let there be a universe!” existed from eternity, when why would the effect not also exist from eternity?”
QUOTE]

An ‘eternal’ or rather ‘ever existing universe’ would not have troubled Aquinas.

Aquinas thought he could not prove philosophically the universe had a beginning. Of course had he known what Newton had, he could have (Susskind in a laecture on Cosmology provided that from Newton one can argue for the Big Bang, at least tentatively)

So Aquinas does not base his arguments on temporal beginnings, unlike the Kalaam argument used by Craig.

Well as much as I like Craig and often he has great arguments, I am not a fan of his Kalaam cosmological argument… but it’s hardly the only one argument.

It’s just the most known by atheists.

I am not sure if

is exactly what Craig actually says.

Is this a direct quotation?

I think Craig is a bit more sophisticated than that:
reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Yes, it’s a direct quote.

reasonablefaith.org/personal-god

 

[jonathan_hili]

That’s a logically contradictory statement. “Was” is a past tense, how could there have been no time, in the past?

Haha! Very true! Shows the limits of the human language, or maybe just mine!

His thought of “let there be a universe” would be non-temporally eternal, so my rebuttal still stands.

How does it still stand? Since God is outside of time, everything to Him is now, even the creation of the universe. However, the universe is the beginning of a temporal sequence, and this sequence can be measured. So “time” literally began 14 or so billion years ago. I’m not sure how your objection still stands, unless you’re saying that God had to have created the universe from eternity because there was no time. But I don’t see how this is necessarily the case, since time is infinitely progressive, not regressive - that is, we count forwards.

Difficult for you maybe, not to me.

I’m glad. Give me an example then of how it can be extended.

This is switching the burden of proof. If someone is arguing that God must be the cause, they have to show why it’s a true dichotomy. I don’t have to show other options. However, another option could be a non-physical/ immaterial pre-universe. It could be anything.

That’s a really strange response, since, without any alternatives it would seem to be a viable dichotomy. For example, if I said, X is either wet or dry, you could say, “That’s a false dichotomy”, but unless you provide a reasonable third option, it seems to be a dichotomy.

How does an immaterial pre-universe even make sense. What is an immaterial pre-universe? I mean, really, God is a kind of immaterial pre-universe.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I would say the real existence of purpose, meaning come into play. Teleology is an oft-neglected area of philosophy. I think most people would acknowledge the difference between dead matter and living, thinking, free “agents” such as humans. Some would argue that all matter has varying degrees of consciousness, however there is no evidence for this, and besides in order for there to be heightened levels of consciousness/intelligence there must also be some ultimate standard to which all ‘agents’ are reaching. Another argument is that consciousness is an “illusion,” and that the processes which govern our thoughts and actions are really not much different than those which occur with the creation of stars (this is what most materialists, especially determinists, believe). Not only does this theory lack evidence, it also contradicts human experience. Each of us experiences consciousness every day, and thus we have no need to argue in favor of its existence. So we are left with a problem of having to account for this phenomenon of intelligence. We can suggest that it is a property of nature that manifests itself once an organism has reached a sufficient level of complexity… But even if this were the case, that would mean that nature itself would have to possess consciousness… anyways I’m going all over the place with this. I work on trying to formalize this argument further but basically what I am saying is that in order for consciousness to exist in our finite universe, it will also have to have always existed. Thus this “first cause” must certainly be intelligent and not a blind unintelligent force.

 

[AgnosticNut]

How does it still stand? Since God is outside of time, everything to Him is now, even the creation of the universe. However, the universe is the beginning of a temporal sequence, and this sequence can be measured. So “time” literally began 14 or so billion years ago. I’m not sure how your objection still stands, unless you’re saying that God had to have created the universe from eternity because there was no time. But I don’t see how this is necessarily the case, since time is infinitely progressive, not regressive - that is, we count forwards.

Then, by using your logic…Craig’s argument for why the universe couldn’t have been caused by a mechanical set of necessary and sufficient conditions fails, based on your argument above. To claim otherwise, would be special pleading.

I’m glad. Give me an example then of how it can be extended.

First, you tell me why it’s difficult to see?

That’s a really strange response, since, without any alternatives it would seem to be a viable dichotomy. For example, if I said, X is either wet or dry, you could say, “That’s a false dichotomy”, but unless you provide a reasonable third option, it seems to be a dichotomy.

Switching the burden of proof fallacy. I do not have to show another alternative, in order for your argument to be a false dichotomy. You have to show it’s a true dichotomy, independent of any explanation I can give. These are the simple rules of logic.

How does an immaterial pre-universe even make sense.

How does it not?

What is an immaterial pre-universe?

A state causally prior to the universe, which is immaterial and non-physical.

I mean, really, God is a kind of immaterial pre-universe.

He could be, but it’s not necessary that an immaterial pre-universe is God. This is the point.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Then, by using your logic…Craig’s argument for why the universe couldn’t have been caused by a mechanical set of necessary and sufficient conditions fails, based on your argument above. To claim otherwise, would be special pleading.

I don’t see how since Craig’s point is that a non-personal entity or cause could not of itself change, so if it were the creating cause of the universe, it would have been this cause and created the universe from eternity. However, this doesn’t apply for a personal entity or cause. Or to put it more clearly (hopefully!), if a law or mechanical (?) cause was behind the universe beginning, then we could count back infinitely, but this need not be the case for a personal cause.

First, you tell me why it’s difficult to see?

Well, since there is no matter before the universe, it can’t be a material cause. Okay, what else do we know? Whatever it would have to be, would have to be an immaterial cause. Abstract objects like numbers. Sure, but they are causally effete. The difficulty is that I can’t think of anything else that could be the cause except some kind of disembodied mind.

Switching the burden of proof fallacy. I do not have to show another alternative, in order for your argument to be a false dichotomy. You have to show it’s a true dichotomy, independent of any explanation I can give. These are the simple rules of logic.

I don’t know what to say. It looks like a dichotomy and if you can’t provide an alternative, why shouldn’t we accept it as a dichotomy. Basically, how do you know it’s a false dichotomy?

Again, it’s like saying: water is wet or dry. Oh, that’s a false dichotomy. Why? It doesn’t look like one and there are no other alternatives that I can think of.

How does it not?

Well, an immaterial pre-universe would be nothing, unless you want to suggest what it could be. I mean, it could be God. Whatever it is, it would have to be something like God to create the universe (it seems).

I guess it doesn’t make sense because you haven’t filled the concept. What do you mean by an immaterial pre-universe? I mean, you say it’s “A state causally prior to the universe, which is immaterial and non-physical”. Okay, so what? So, it’s an atemporal state that exists before the universe is caused to exist, yes, sure. But how does that help us understand the first cause?

He could be, but it’s not necessary that an immaterial pre-universe is God. This is the point.

Sure, but an immaterial pre-universe isn’t causally effective in the way God would be. It just describes what obviously would exist before (again, to use incorrect temporal terminology!) - well, logically and causally before - the universe came into existence.

 

[AgnosticNut]

I don’t see how since Craig’s point is that a non-personal entity or cause could not of itself change, so if it were the creating cause of the universe, it would have been this cause and created the universe from eternity.

God is defined as changeless as well. Thus, the same argument applies in reverse as I already explained.

However, this doesn’t apply for a personal entity or cause.

Yes it does, or else you are committing the special pleading logical fallacy.

Or to put it more clearly (hopefully!), if a law or mechanical (?) cause was behind the universe beginning, then we could count back infinitely, but this need not be the case for a personal cause.

Yes it would be the case for a personal cause. Or else, you are committing the special pleading fallacy. It seems you have a bad habit of making illogical statements.

Well, since there is no matter before the universe, it can’t be a material cause. Okay, what else do we know? Whatever it would have to be, would have to be an immaterial cause.

Ok, it has to be an immaterial cause. This doesn’t mean it has to be God. To make that claim, you would have to rule out all other immaterial possibilities, even ones that haven’t been thought up of yet

Abstract objects like numbers. Sure, but they are causally effete. The difficulty is that I can’t think of anything else that could be the cause except some kind of disembodied mind.

Just because you cannot think of anything else, doesn’t mean there isn’t anything else. This is called the argument from ignorance logical fallacy you are committing.

I don’t know what to say. It looks like a dichotomy and if you can’t provide an alternative, why shouldn’t we accept it as a dichotomy. Basically, how do you know it’s a false dichotomy?

It doesn’t look like a true dichotomy, because this notion has not been defended. Also, you are switching the burden of proof. I do not have to show it’s a false dichotomy, you have to show it’s a true dichotomy. Regardless, it’s a false dichotomy, because a non-sentient per-universe has not been ruled out. Until you rule this out logically or metaphysically, then what you are proposing isn’t a true dichotomy.

Again, it’s like saying: water is wet or dry. Oh, that’s a false dichotomy. Why? It doesn’t look like one and there are no other alternatives that I can think of.

False-analogy. Using what we know of, makes sense when dealing with what we know. However you are trying to use what we know, in an area we don’t know (no space or time). Thus, this analogy is not valid.

Well, an immaterial pre-universe would be nothing,

This is a logically contradictory statement. Nothing means non-existence, thus a pre-universe cannot be non-existence, because the pre-universe would exist.

unless you want to suggest what it could be.

Switching the burden of proof fallacy. If you claim a pre-universe is nothing, you have to explain why. You cannot make a statement, and then ask me to prove you wrong. That’s illogical. If you make a statement, you have to prove it correct.

I mean, it could be God. Whatever it is, it would have to be something like God to create the universe (it seems).

If by “like God” you mean immaterial/ non-physical, then sure. However, by “like God” you mean personal/ sentient, then there is no justification for that.

I guess it doesn’t make sense because you haven’t filled the concept. What do you mean by an immaterial pre-universe?

Exactly what it states. If you want to know what I mean, I suggest looking up each word I typed in the dictionary.

I mean, you say it’s “A state causally prior to the universe, which is immaterial and non-physical”. Okay, so what? So, it’s an atemporal state that exists before the universe is caused to exist, yes, sure. But how does that help us understand the first cause?

Maybe there is no sufficient cause, just a necessary cause.

Sure, but an immaterial pre-universe isn’t causally effective in the way God would be.

Why not?

It just describes what obviously would exist before (again, to use incorrect temporal terminology!) - well, logically and causally before - the universe came into existence.

This assumes that there must have been a sufficient cause of the universe, when there is no reason to assume that is the case. Also, even if there was a sufficient cause, there is no reason why it has to be God. I do not have to provide an example of ‘x’. to show that ‘x’ has not been ruled out.

Since your arguments contained:

Arguments from ignorance fallacies
Switching the burden of proof fallacies
Special pleading fallacies
False-analofy fallacies

Then your argument is invalid.

 

[ivebeenshown]

That’s a logically contradictory statement. “Was” is a past tense, how could there have been no time, in the past?

I’m sorry, but I must interject here. To speak of time is to speak of a certain interval of change. If the beginning of the universe marked the beginning of all change, then it would be perfectly fine to say that before the universe existed, there was no time – it would be just like saying “before the universe existed, there was no change.”

Ok, it has to be an immaterial cause. This doesn’t mean it has to be God. To make that claim, you would have to rule out all other immaterial possibilities, even ones that haven’t been thought up of yet

I feel that you go about this the wrong way. The primary attribute of God’s nature is his timelessness and precedence. It’s not a question of whether or not the uncaused cause is God, but of what the other attributes of God are. Is God personal? Intelligent? Just? So on.

 

[AgnosticNut]

I’m sorry, but I must interject here. To speak of time is to speak of a certain interval of change. If the beginning of the universe marked the beginning of all change, then it would be perfectly fine to say that before the universe existed,

Your position is self-contradictory. If no time = no change, then this means you cannot say “before the universe”, because that would imply there was change, because “before” means at a previous time.

:there was no time –

Was is a past tense, you cannot say there was no time without contradicting yourself logically.

:it would be just like saying "before the universe existed, there was no change.

Once more, this is self-contradictory. “Before” means at a previous time. Thus, if no time = no change, then you cannot say “before” the universe, there was no change. That it implies that there was no change, and that there was change (because “before” means at a previous time).

 

[AgnosticNut]

I feel that you go about this the wrong way. The primary attribute of God’s nature is his timelessness and precedence. It’s not a question of whether or not the uncaused cause is God, but of what the other attributes of God are. Is God personal? Intelligent? Just? So on.

I feel that you go about your objection the wrong way. It is a question of whether the uncaused cause is God, because if it isn’t, then Cosmological Arguments are useless in demonstrating his existence. Also, God is defined as a conscious/ sentient being, if the cause isn’t a sentient being, then we cannot really call it God. If we can, we certainly cannot call it the Christian God.