Arguments against first cause/uncaused cause?

[BearCavalry]

I've always believed that the argument of first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God.

It doesn't prove whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jainists have the right idea about God. It doesn't prove whether God is good or evil. It doesn't prove whether God is a personal, loving entity or something as impersonal as some self-causing physics concept that propogates the galaxy.

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space. I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

[rosey]

OK nobody has challenged/answered my questions on the previous page yet so I'll challenge:

Rosey you ignorant Christian, don't you know that Science, the arch nemesis of all religion, especially yours, has come out with a perfectly logical explanation, straight from the (mutated) lips* of Stephen Hawking? Why yes, he ingeniously explains (or at least states) that God is not a necessary part of the equation any longer. We now can all rest easily knowing that the un-caused cause is gravity.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking

So quite obviously, because Stephen Hawking is a certified genius, we know that gravity somehow caused the big bang.

Alright, let's think for a moment. First of all we must ask ourselves what it is that caused gravity. Objects. All objects have gravity. The bigger the object, the greater its pull. Hence the planets orbiting the sun. So if there was nothing but gravity that must mean... yah that makes no sense at all. But now for the sake of argument, (no matter how ridiculous that argument is) let's say there was magically only gravity. How exactly would it cause the big bang? Gravity isn't really known for exploding into universes, at least not that I've heard. So yeah, I'd say old Stevie needs to revise that one.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... ng-creator

[Goat]

OK nobody has challenged/answered my questions on the previous page yet so I'll challenge:

Rosey you ignorant Christian, don't you know that Science, the arch nemesis of all religion, especially yours, has come out with a perfectly logical explanation, straight from the (mutated) lips* of Stephen Hawking? Why yes, he ingeniously explains (or at least states) that God is not a necessary part of the equation any longer. We now can all rest easily knowing that the un-caused cause is gravity.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking

So quite obviously, because Stephen Hawking is a certified genius, we know that gravity somehow caused the big bang.

Alright, let's think for a moment. First of all we must ask ourselves what it is that caused gravity. Objects. All objects have gravity. The bigger the object, the greater its pull. Hence the planets orbiting the sun. So if there was nothing but gravity that must mean... yah that makes no sense at all. But now for the sake of argument, (no matter how ridiculous that argument is) let's say there was magically only gravity. How exactly would it cause the big bang? Gravity isn't really known for exploding into universes, at least not that I've heard. So yeah, I'd say old Stevie needs to revise that one.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... ng-creator

And why can't gravity be eternal?? Can you show it is not?

For that matter, can you show that the universe is not eternal?? According to the law of conservation of energy, matter/energy can be neither created or destroyed, but only change form.

Coudl it be all the matter/energy have always existed, in one form or another?

[rosey]

OK nobody has challenged/answered my questions on the previous page yet so I'll challenge:

Rosey you ignorant Christian, don't you know that Science, the arch nemesis of all religion, especially yours, has come out with a perfectly logical explanation, straight from the (mutated) lips* of Stephen Hawking? Why yes, he ingeniously explains (or at least states) that God is not a necessary part of the equation any longer. We now can all rest easily knowing that the un-caused cause is gravity.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking

So quite obviously, because Stephen Hawking is a certified genius, we know that gravity somehow caused the big bang.

Alright, let's think for a moment. First of all we must ask ourselves what it is that caused gravity. Objects. All objects have gravity. The bigger the object, the greater its pull. Hence the planets orbiting the sun. So if there was nothing but gravity that must mean... yah that makes no sense at all. But now for the sake of argument, (no matter how ridiculous that argument is) let's say there was magically only gravity. How exactly would it cause the big bang? Gravity isn't really known for exploding into universes, at least not that I've heard. So yeah, I'd say old Stevie needs to revise that one.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... ng-creator

And why can't gravity be eternal?? Can you show it is not?

For gravity to be eternal there would have to be something else that was eternal, a material object. Then you would have to show it being eternal or not, what it was capable of, etc.

For that matter, can you show that the universe is not eternal?? According to the law of conservation of energy, matter/energy can be neither created or destroyed, but only change form.

Coudl it be all the matter/energy have always existed, in one form or another?

You missed the previous page

Evidently something must be uncaused. Theists usually posit that whatever is uncaused must be an entity that exists outside of spacetime. Atheists can posit that it is the universe itself that is uncaused. Judge for yourself which scenario makes more sense: the one that needs a being to exist in a realm which we cannot (even in principle) know anything about OR the one that accepts that all that can be shown to exist, in principle, is all that does exist. Hint: use Occam's razor.

So you deny Aristotle's idea that god is the un-caused first cause, and instead maintain that the universe is? Tell me, how can a universe that is expanding at an ever increasing rate due to a lil' thing called Dark Energy be un-caused? What happened to the big bang? So with that proven wrong, most now turn to the argument that states

OK, the universe isn't eternal. It's been blowing up and then collapsing on itself again eternally.

And once again, Dark Energy rears its ugly head. The universe is expanding apart from a central point faster and faster. Galaxies are moving away from each other, and that speed is ever growing. They are not collapsing. They never have been. Time for a new theory (and by new I mean one besides the one that has been held true since the dawn of man... Incidentally, would you like to know what happens when you run out of theories? You get to where I am. Convert to the Light).

[StephanM]

Evidently something must be uncaused. Theists usually posit that whatever is uncaused must be an entity that exists outside of spacetime. Atheists can posit that it is the universe itself that is uncaused. Judge for yourself which scenario makes more sense: the one that needs a being to exist in a realm which we cannot (even in principle) know anything about OR the one that accepts that all that can be shown to exist, in principle, is all that does exist. Hint: use Occam's razor.

So you deny Aristotle's idea that god is the un-caused first cause, and instead maintain that the universe is? Tell me, how can a universe that is expanding at an ever increasing rate due to a lil' thing called Dark Energy be un-caused? What happened to the big bang? So with that proven wrong, most now turn to the argument that states

OK, the universe isn't eternal. It's been blowing up and then collapsing on itself again eternally.

And once again, Dark Energy rears its ugly head. The universe is expanding apart from a central point faster and faster. Galaxies are moving away from each other, and that speed is ever growing. They are not collapsing. They never have been. Time for a new theory (and by new I mean one besides the one that has been held true since the dawn of man... Incidentally, would you like to know what happens when you run out of theories? You get to where I am. Convert to the Light).

The exponential expansion does point to an uncaused first cause, but it doesn't say why we should prefer to say that something external to the universe was the uncaused cause, rather than that the first event in the universe was the uncaused cause. Without that piece, Occam's razor applies. I explained above why I think we should prefer the external explanation.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

...
Alright, let's think for a moment. First of all we must ask ourselves what it is that caused gravity. Objects. All objects have gravity. The bigger the object, the greater its pull. Hence the planets orbiting the sun. So if there was nothing but gravity that must mean... yah that makes no sense at all.

"It makes no sense to do it, but let's carry on about it anyway..."

But now for the sake of argument, (no matter how ridiculous that argument is) let's say there was magically only gravity.

If we're gonna invoke the magical, the theist has already won the debate, gravity or not.

How exactly would it cause the big bang?

I'll leave this'n to the experts and fat brains among us.

Gravity isn't really known for exploding into universes, at least not that I've heard.

Which is why we shouldn't take an argument we consider "no sense at all", and then use "magic" to try to make an argument around it.

So yeah, I'd say old Stevie needs to revise that one.

And how 'bout that, Miss rosey overturns the notions of one of the most respected thinkers of our day, just by invoking magic to argue against a notion she herself admits is nonsense. Where "nonsense" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

(edit - sorry, hit submit instead of preview)

[StephanM]

Evidently something must be uncaused. Theists usually posit that whatever is uncaused must be an entity that exists outside of spacetime. Atheists can posit that it is the universe itself that is uncaused. Judge for yourself which scenario makes more sense: the one that needs a being to exist in a realm which we cannot (even in principle) know anything about OR the one that accepts that all that can be shown to exist, in principle, is all that does exist. Hint: use Occam's razor.

The idea that the universe itself is uncaused would be cleaner if there was no reason for including an entity outside the universe, but I don't think that's the case for 2 reasons:

1) One of the very fundamentals of our understanding of the universe is that everything made up of matter, energy, time, space, etc. requires some sort of cause for it to do anything. To say that the universe itself (which is made up for matter, etc.) disobeys this is to blatantly ignore a fundamental understanding of the universe that is the basis for making sense of anything that goes on.

Except, of course, potentially, for such things as virtual particles. ..and some things appear to be probabilistic, rather than deterministic, such as radioactive decay

So, there do seem to be things that might be uncaused. .. or it could be hidden variables. We have no way to determine that.

However, it could be that the conditions that gave rise to the universe are 'eternal' (what ever that means).

This sounds like an argument from ignorance to me. I guarantee that there are people searching for the causes to these things based on this fundamental understanding. It's like a person living 4,000 years ago saying that the weather is completely random and therefore uncaused. Contrary to this, this first cause can be shown to be uncaused by deduction.

2) What is free will? You might say that we don't have free will because there are so many things that affect our actions that we can almost predict what choice a person will make with enough information. Even so, what would ideal, absolute, pure free will look like? It would be an action with absolutely no outside influence. In other words, an entity causing something without anything causing the entity; a first cause. This means that (assuming there was a first cause, which hasn't been proven here) there was a will that caused all the commotion we see in the universe.

If you just take #2, you could say that the universe has a will, but if you add #1, then it's a will which is external to the universe that caused everything that has been caused, be it some sort of god or whatever you want to call it.

In my opinion, since 'free will' has so many contradictory definitions, the concept of free will is meaningless.. and basically is just key phrases to answer Epicurus' problem of evil.

OK, so ignore the term then. An entity performing an action without being compelled by any other cause demonstrates that it chose the action on its own. Choice requires intelligence. So whatever this entity is (the universe, or an external entity) has intelligence and made a choice on its own.

[rosey]

Evidently something must be uncaused. Theists usually posit that whatever is uncaused must be an entity that exists outside of spacetime. Atheists can posit that it is the universe itself that is uncaused. Judge for yourself which scenario makes more sense: the one that needs a being to exist in a realm which we cannot (even in principle) know anything about OR the one that accepts that all that can be shown to exist, in principle, is all that does exist. Hint: use Occam's razor.

So you deny Aristotle's idea that god is the un-caused first cause, and instead maintain that the universe is? Tell me, how can a universe that is expanding at an ever increasing rate due to a lil' thing called Dark Energy be un-caused? What happened to the big bang? So with that proven wrong, most now turn to the argument that states

OK, the universe isn't eternal. It's been blowing up and then collapsing on itself again eternally.

And once again, Dark Energy rears its ugly head. The universe is expanding apart from a central point faster and faster. Galaxies are moving away from each other, and that speed is ever growing. They are not collapsing. They never have been. Time for a new theory (and by new I mean one besides the one that has been held true since the dawn of man... Incidentally, would you like to know what happens when you run out of theories? You get to where I am. Convert to the Light).

The exponential expansion does point to an uncaused first cause, but it doesn't say why we should prefer to say that something external to the universe was the uncaused cause, rather than that the first event in the universe was the uncaused cause. Without that piece, Occam's razor applies. I explained above why I think we should prefer the external explanation.

What exactly is capable of creating something from nothing, being an un-caused first cause? Nothing natural that we are aware of. Such a phenomena has never been observed, and unless you are blatantly ignorant and put blind faith in people who think they are smart, you will know that something cannot come from nothing. It's impossible. At least for something that the laws of the universe apply to. But what if there was something outside the laws of the universe, a supreme being. Given the fact we know that the universe exploded from one point from apparently nothing into everything, and is ever expanding, this would fit out logically. So yes, a deity is the logical conclusion. From there you must determine which deity, and I found the book I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist very helpful in that field.

[rosey]

From Post 21:

...
Alright, let's think for a moment. First of all we must ask ourselves what it is that caused gravity. Objects. All objects have gravity. The bigger the object, the greater its pull. Hence the planets orbiting the sun. So if there was nothing but gravity that must mean... yah that makes no sense at all.

"It makes no sense to do it, but let's carry on about it anyway..."

But now for the sake of argument, (no matter how ridiculous that argument is) let's say there was magically only gravity.

If we're gonna invoke the magical, the theist has already won the debate, gravity or not.

How exactly would it cause the big bang?

I'll leave this'n to the experts and fat brains among us.

Gravity isn't really known for exploding into universes, at least not that I've heard.

Which is why we shouldn't take an argument we consider "no sense at all", and then use "magic" to try to make an argument around it.

So yeah, I'd say old Stevie needs to revise that one.

And how 'bout that, Miss rosey overturns the notions of one of the most respected thinkers of our day, just by invoking magic to argue against a notion she herself admits is nonsense. Where "nonsense" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

(edit - sorry, hit submit instead of preview)

Wow, that was incredibly unhelpful. You maintain that Theism is wrong, but cannot provide proof for your own beliefs... would you please consider contributing something other than ignorant sarcasm to the conversation? Oh and, your "fat brains" are demonstrably not fat.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 28:

Wow, that was incredibly unhelpful.

I bear no responsibility for your inability to find my referenced post helpful.

You maintain that Theism is wrong...

I maintain that your referenced argument is wrong, for the reasons I presented.

but cannot provide proof for your own beliefs...

Please link to and quote verbatim such beliefs I've presented for which you wish to challenge.

My one belief here is that your referenced argument was just plain goofy, for the reasons I previously stated.

would you please consider contributing something other than ignorant sarcasm to the conversation?

I caution against the use of the term "ignorant", lest folks think I had me a case of it.

I will not be bound to debate in a manner that brings you comfort.

Oh and, your "fat brains" are demonstrably not fat.

For the record, I don't include myself in that bunch, and do not use the term in any form other than with the utmost respect (not that you've said otherwise).

That said, I see nothing in your argument that indicates you've got a better take on this whole deal than the next'n.

[rosey]

From Post 28:

Wow, that was incredibly unhelpful.

I bear no responsibility for your inability to find my referenced post helpful.

You maintain that Theism is wrong...

I maintain that your referenced argument is wrong, for the reasons I presented.

but cannot provide proof for your own beliefs...

Please link to and quote verbatim such beliefs I've presented for which you wish to challenge.

My one belief here is that your referenced argument was just plain goofy, for the reasons I previously stated.

would you please consider contributing something other than ignorant sarcasm to the conversation?

I caution against the use of the term "ignorant", lest folks think I had me a case of it.

I will not be bound to debate in a manner that brings you comfort.

Oh and, your "fat brains" are demonstrably not fat.

For the record, I don't include myself in that bunch, and do not use the term in any form other than with the utmost respect (not that you've said otherwise).

That said, I see nothing in your argument that indicates you've got a better take on this whole deal than the next'n.

And what is the "next'n"?