| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"newbert" |
| Date: |
06 May 2006 04:02:45 PM |
| Object: |
First Cause Argument |
I'm so fed up with shoddy theist arguments on here that I, an atheist,
thought I'd sit down and MAKE UP some better ones, just to give us
something better to argue with. So here goes one:
My Imagined Theist Response to the Atheist Refutation of the First
Cause Argument
A possible atheist position (Bertrand Russell expressed this one, I
believe): the First Cause Argument doesn't prove God because, if
everything must have a cause, then we must ask: what caused God? If
you say "Nothing, God is causeless," then not everything must have a
cause. And if not everything must have a cause, then the universe may
just as likely have no cause--and thus no God is necessary to explain
its existence.
Theist response: Eternal things have no beginning and therefore no
cause, but ONLY God is eternal. Even our souls are not eternal--they
are immortal, which is different: souls are created by God, so while
they are immortal, they had a beginning and are therefore not eternal
(did not always exist). God is therefore ONLY thing which can claim to
have always been and thus needs no cause. Everything else, including
the universe, did have a beginning (e.g. Big Bang theory), is not
eternal, and thus not in the same category as God. So to say that the
universe is as likely to have no cause as God is invalid--that's
comparing apples to oranges, a temporary entity with an eternal one.
So God CAN be a Causeless First Cause.
Ok, let's chew on that, shall we? It's the best argument I can come up
with for them so far.
.
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: First Cause Argument |
06 May 2006 04:34:01 PM |
|
|
"newbert" <vikmail@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1146949365.802449.150820@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
....
Theist response: Eternal things have no beginning and therefore no
cause, but ONLY God is eternal. Even our souls are not eternal--they
are immortal, which is different: souls are created by God, so while
they are immortal, they had a beginning and are therefore not eternal
(did not always exist). God is therefore ONLY thing which can claim to
have always been and thus needs no cause. Everything else, including
the universe, did have a beginning (e.g. Big Bang theory), is not
eternal, and thus not in the same category as God. So to say that the
universe is as likely to have no cause as God is invalid--that's
comparing apples to oranges, a temporary entity with an eternal one.
So God CAN be a Causeless First Cause.
Ok, let's chew on that, shall we? It's the best argument I can come up
with for them so far.
As the name implies, a First Cause argument establishes no more than the
need for a first cause. IOW, the nature and characteristics of this first
cause is not addressed by this argument. The claim that this first cause is
a deity, or that it is eternal, is entirely unsupported assertion and pure
speculation. Furthermore, it has not been established that the universe had
a beginning, the BBT notwithstanding.
Regards,
Josef
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: First Cause Argument |
06 May 2006 06:36:05 PM |
|
|
"Josef Balluch" <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:eD87g.5336$ix6.428607@news20.bellglobal.com...
"newbert" <vikmail@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1146949365.802449.150820@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
...
Theist response: Eternal things have no beginning and therefore no
cause, but ONLY God is eternal. Even our souls are not eternal--they
are immortal, which is different: souls are created by God, so while
they are immortal, they had a beginning and are therefore not eternal
(did not always exist). God is therefore ONLY thing which can claim to
have always been and thus needs no cause. Everything else, including
the universe, did have a beginning (e.g. Big Bang theory), is not
eternal, and thus not in the same category as God. So to say that the
universe is as likely to have no cause as God is invalid--that's
comparing apples to oranges, a temporary entity with an eternal one.
So God CAN be a Causeless First Cause.
Ok, let's chew on that, shall we? It's the best argument I can come up
with for them so far.
As the name implies, a First Cause argument establishes no more than the
need for a first cause. IOW, the nature and characteristics of this first
cause is not addressed by this argument. The claim that this first cause
is
a deity, or that it is eternal, is entirely unsupported assertion and pure
speculation. Furthermore, it has not been established that the universe
had
a beginning, the BBT notwithstanding.
Regards,
Josef
As has already been noted by others responding to this post, one could come
up with any number of zany 'explanations' in regards to 'God' and the 'First
Cause' argument. The problem with them is that they must be backed up with
'genuine' PROOF that they are true.
I wonder what 'grandma' God has to say about all this.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: First Cause Argument |
06 May 2006 04:19:17 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2006 14:02:45 -0700, "newbert" <vikmail@myway.com> wrote:
I'm so fed up with shoddy theist arguments on here that I, an atheist,
thought I'd sit down and MAKE UP some better ones, just to give us
something better to argue with. So here goes one:
My Imagined Theist Response to the Atheist Refutation of the First
Cause Argument
A possible atheist position (Bertrand Russell expressed this one, I
believe): the First Cause Argument doesn't prove God because, if
everything must have a cause, then we must ask: what caused God? If
you say "Nothing, God is causeless," then not everything must have a
cause. And if not everything must have a cause, then the universe may
just as likely have no cause--and thus no God is necessary to explain
its existence.
Theist response: Eternal things have no beginning and therefore no
cause, but ONLY God is eternal. Even our souls are not eternal--they
are immortal, which is different: souls are created by God, so while
they are immortal, they had a beginning and are therefore not eternal
(did not always exist). God is therefore ONLY thing which can claim to
have always been and thus needs no cause. Everything else, including
the universe, did have a beginning (e.g. Big Bang theory), is not
eternal, and thus not in the same category as God. So to say that the
universe is as likely to have no cause as God is invalid--that's
comparing apples to oranges, a temporary entity with an eternal one.
So God CAN be a Causeless First Cause.
Ok, let's chew on that, shall we? It's the best argument I can come up
with for them so far.
It's also a Special Pleading fallacy from the get-go.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: First Cause Argument |
07 May 2006 08:01:32 PM |
|
|
newbert wrote:
I'm so fed up with shoddy theist arguments on here that I, an atheist,
thought I'd sit down and MAKE UP some better ones, just to give us
something better to argue with. So here goes one:
My Imagined Theist Response to the Atheist Refutation of the First
Cause Argument
A possible atheist position (Bertrand Russell expressed this one, I
believe): the First Cause Argument doesn't prove God because, if
everything must have a cause, then we must ask: what caused God? If
you say "Nothing, God is causeless," then not everything must have a
cause. And if not everything must have a cause, then the universe may
just as likely have no cause--and thus no God is necessary to explain
its existence.
Theist response: Eternal things have no beginning and therefore no
cause, but ONLY God is eternal. Even our souls are not eternal--they
are immortal, which is different: souls are created by God, so while
they are immortal, they had a beginning and are therefore not eternal
(did not always exist). God is therefore ONLY thing which can claim to
have always been and thus needs no cause. Everything else, including
the universe, did have a beginning (e.g. Big Bang theory), is not
eternal, and thus not in the same category as God. So to say that the
universe is as likely to have no cause as God is invalid--that's
comparing apples to oranges, a temporary entity with an eternal one.
So God CAN be a Causeless First Cause.
Ok, let's chew on that, shall we? It's the best argument I can come up
with for them so far.
The first cause argument has many flaws.
1. It states that everything must have a cause, then
contradicts itself by claiming god is an exception.
If god needs no cause, likewise we are entitled to make
the same assertion about the Universe as a whole.
2. It asserts that there cannot be a chain of causes reaching
back into infinity. But that is a mere assertion and is wrong,
its quite possible. There is no restraint to such a thing.
All theology has here is special pleading.
3. It errs in that it assumes there was only one thing (god)
that existed as a cause. Because of this theology has also
had to claim god is "simple" not made up of parts. Otherwise
theology has to explain these parts, and their origins and
has to admit god is not a necessary being. A house is made
of bricks, roofing materials, lumber etc. A house can not
be necessary as it is contingent on these things existing
first to build a house. Likewise, god cannot be necessary
if made of parts. We have to explain the origin of the parts
as we have to explain a house's bricks and lumber.
This is a ludicrous solution that leads to foolish subclaims.
Since god is "simple" having no parts, god's intelligence,
will, abilities are all one thing. Then is man's intelligence and
abilities one thing? No. Why then should we assume that what
is denied with man is possible with god in such an ad hoc fashion?
First cause/god arguments have a lot of hidden problems like
this theology handles by not mentioning them. Not very honest.
And the ad hocism of first cause arguments simply deepen.
4. It is quite possible that there is no one thing that is the first cause
of the Universe, that the Universe may very well consist of vast
number of things each with its own infinite chain of cause and effect,
though of a limited number of physical effects. Theology cannot
disprove this in the least and relies totally on special pleading
for its claims.
5. Some cosmologists have shown its quite possible our physical
Universe is but one of an infinite number of island Universe, infinite
in number and in time. Theology most certainly cannot disprove
such a claim.
6. Particles come in and out of existance in virtual particle pairs
in vast numbers. Our initial big bang's singularity came from
the same sources, fields, that create these virtual particles.
We do not need god to account for the Universe at all.
Its not god and its not turtles all the way down, its physics
all the way down. God seemed a good idea only because
ancients did not have science to show them how it all came
about.
7. Theology makes claims only one god exists. It cannot prove that
claim either.
8. Theological first argument claims are shot through and through
with special pleading, not evidence, or proof and handles other
possible claims by merely denying them without good cause.
9. There exist actually several subtly differing first cause arguments.
Theology often argues by shifting from one to another illicitly.
In fiera and in esse arguments, prime mover arguments.
10. For example Aristotle claimed that a prime mover was needed to
provide movement to the substance (ousia) of the Universe.
Physics shows us that turbulence is part and parcel of all expanding
gases and fluids. The expanding singularity of the big bang gave
us first a sea of quarks that coalleced to a sea of hot particles,
finally atoms. No god is needed to provide movement to the
substance of the Universe, the stars, planets or comets. This
prime mover argument is thus dead, WMAP and other satellites
have shown us that from the early era of the big bang, turbulence
was part and parcel of the big bang. No prime mover needed.
Nor to create the singularity, which would be variation #2 on
the cosmological argument. God was originally an ad hoc
hypothesis to expain movement of heavenly bodies and matter.
Its superflous, and was used only because Greek philosophers
really knew nothing about physics. An expanding cloud of hot
fluid or gases will have turbulence which will impart movement
to the particles making up that gas or liquid. No god needed.
10. There are other problems with such claims such as problems with
god's relationship to cause and effect giving rise to sometimes
ludicrous subclaims such as Malebranche's Occasionalism, Descarte's
Parallelism, or deist claims of a god that creates the world and
afterwards does not interfer with it, or may not even exist any more.
11. Theology ignores other possibilities such as Plato's idea that
the demiurge that created this Universe did not create the substance
of the Universe but just arranged it. Or other Gnostic ideas such
that this Universe is an imperfect physical copy of an ideal
Universe created by an evil demiurge. Again by ignoring possible
other claims, theology has been indulging in special pleading.
Merely asserting its claims are true.
12. There is no evidence for god, only assertions. taking a basic
subset of assertions its easy enough to show the creator
omni-everything class of gods cannot exist. Thus a god that
alledgedly created the Universe is a moot point to begin with.
You could write large thick books exploding this argument and
many have.
Its been ***** for centuries and recognized as such by many.
--
"Just because you don't take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
- Pericles
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: First Cause Argument |
06 May 2006 04:28:39 PM |
|
|
newbert wrote:
I'm so fed up with shoddy theist arguments on here that I, an atheist,
thought I'd sit down and MAKE UP some better ones, just to give us
something better to argue with. So here goes one:
My Imagined Theist Response to the Atheist Refutation of the First
Cause Argument
A possible atheist position (Bertrand Russell expressed this one, I
believe): the First Cause Argument doesn't prove God because, if
everything must have a cause, then we must ask: what caused God? If
you say "Nothing, God is causeless," then not everything must have a
cause. And if not everything must have a cause, then the universe may
just as likely have no cause--and thus no God is necessary to explain
its existence.
Theist response: Eternal things have no beginning and therefore no
cause, but ONLY God is eternal. Even our souls are not eternal--they
are immortal, which is different: souls are created by God, so while
they are immortal, they had a beginning and are therefore not eternal
(did not always exist).
What is a soul?
God is therefore ONLY thing which can claim to
have always been and thus needs no cause. Everything else, including
the universe, did have a beginning (e.g. Big Bang theory), is not
eternal, and thus not in the same category as God. So to say that the
universe is as likely to have no cause as God is invalid--that's
comparing apples to oranges, a temporary entity with an eternal one.
So God CAN be a Causeless First Cause.
Ok, let's chew on that, shall we? It's the best argument I can come up
with for them so far.
This assumes what you seek to prove: That there is a god, and it is
eternal, by the definition you provide for the purpose of showing said
god to fit that definition.
Beyond which, until you actually find evidence of a god, asserting its
existence as the Prime Mover is nothing but an argument from ignorance.
We see causality in this universe, in time and space, but when there is
not time and space (what is thought to "precede" the big bang), we know
nothing of any rules. It may be that universes can spontaneously be
generated for no rhyme or reason.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
