The First Cause Argument

[McCulloch]

The First Cause Argument
Simply stated this argument asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause. If the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
Is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

[harvey1]

If it doesn't have a cause, then it is an irrational event.

So is God an irrational event? Or must God exist because Existence without a cause is an irrational event? God doesn't have a cause, so is an irrational event (God) the cause of a rational event (the Universe)

Technically, causation has a "cause": the lack of an alternative possibility. That is, we can imagine a world where there are no causes whatsoever. That would be a magical world where things just happen at whim. The reason that world doesn't exist is because it is not consistent, and this lack of consistency violates every possibility in that world making it an impossible world by its own lights (i.e., it would be a non-occurring world). In my view it is better to say that "God is uncaused" is a meaningless proposition. It is neither true or false, it has no meaning. It is like saying "the color red is up." When we know what God is, then we know that any rational conception requires God's existence, and therefore it makes no sense to say what causes a rational conception since the attempt to make sense of a rational conception is a rational conception. God just is.

And where did the definitions of rational and irrational come from?

Irrational means that something is without a rational cause. Rational means that there exists a logic to the world where everything that occurs is causally consistent with that logic. If there were other logics that conflict with this rational account, then there would need to exist a meta-logic that all the rules of the lower logics are logical. If no such meta-logic existed, then the world would be irrational. According to this theist approach, God is deeply connected to this meta-logic, and therefore theism is a rational approach to the world. Since atheism says that ultimately a brute fact is responsible for the universe, it is saying that there is no meta-logic which ultimately determines the nature of the universe. Therefore atheism is an irrational view since there are things (e.g., multiverse) which have no reason for their existence. (You can't say that they were the only possible thing to exist since possibilty would be referring to some meta-logic which is non-material and aware that the universe must have a particular brute fact. That would be assuming God.)

[Bro Dave]

So, quantum mechanics is logical and rational? We draw funny lines around those words. Since none of us has an absolute proof of anything, the truth contained is pretty much up to the individual. So while we may all agree on certain things that seem "rational" or "logical", we are stuck with a very tiny sample of data from which to draw those conclusions.

Its all relative... ya know?

Bro Dave

[Tim the Skeptic]

Harvey1 wrote

God just is.

What does the verb "is" or "to be" mean when it is applied to "God"?

Here are a couple of definitions of "be" from Merriam's online dictionary:

1 a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : SYMBOLIZE <God is love> <January is the first month> <let x be 10> b : to have identity with <the first person I met was my brother> c : to constitute the same class as d : to have a specified qualification or characterization <the leaves are green> e : to belong to the class of <the fish is a trout> -- used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2 a : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality : LIVE <I think, therefore I am> <once upon a time there was a knight> b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position <the book is on the table> c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted -- used only in infinitive form <let him be> d : to take place : OCCUR <the concert was last night> e : to come or go <has already been and gone> <has never been to the circus> f archaic : BELONG, BEFALL
verbal auxiliary

Can I assume that when you say that "God just is", you are referring to the second definition?

[Cathar1950]

I have wondered how a God out side of time, with no beginning or end, and unchangeable God qualify as "is" or exists in any way that can be discerned. I am not arguing against God existence, but wonder given the "American" God's qualities, attributes, and imaginings, if it is really meaningful but, rather useful. I tend to think that the idea of one God tends to create intolerant of other thought. This also may tend to limit creative expression in many areas while opening others. But the expressions many times seem limited to social utility along established power structures that are often exploiting. An authoritarian mind set and intolerance often comes with a need for checks and balance as well as protection of civil liberties across all level of societies with out exploitation.
This is about first cause isn't it?
Maybe it should be about first effect.

[Columbus]

This argument has never seemed at all troubling to me. The universe exists(theoretically) We know very very very little about it. If you wish to use the term God to refer to the reason it exists(if it does) then POOF you have wished God right into an existence every bit as real as the universe(but no more so). Of course, that barely qualifies you as a Deist.

Where the rub comes in is when folks start adding characteristics to this God. Does this God still exist? No info available. Did God intentionally create the universe, or is it some kind of a side-effect of something else? No question of this sort can be answered. There is no useful information provided by this bit of semantic sleight-of-hand.

Try this on for size. Suppose the physical universe is the dump where God put construction waste when He built Heaven. Our dreams of a Loving Father and Heaven are the collective memories of our constituent components. Heaven is a cosmic party to which we are not invited. We would be as welcome in Heaven as some sawdust and brick chips at the ribbon cutting ceremony of the swanky high rise we were swept out of. Look at the universe from a God's eye view. It's a bunch of gas and little specks. Most of it is burning in nuclear fire. Maybe the universe is a cosmic incinerator. God would still be the Creator, but humans wouldn't really qualify as "The Crown of Creation".

Simply assuming that "The universe exists, therefore God exists" doesn't really get you much.

Tom

[Bro Dave]

Atheists and Agnostics always seem to argue against God because they see God as a simplistic answer created to explain our current unansweralbe questions. While this certainly has had some validity in the past, one cannot simply dismiss all the millions of people, who literally experience God as an every day reality in their lives. For them, God is the "explaination" for that interface they have come to know, and to cherish. Mankind seems to have a long history of cycling between focusing on, and finding truths either in the material, physical realms, or soley in the spirital realms. I suggest both are real experiences. The main difference is, we have free will choice to allow God to be a part of our lives, whereas our material existance is more difficult to ignore.(unless you're a Budhhist )

Bro Dave

[QED]

Irrational means that something is without a rational cause. Rational means that there exists a logic to the world where everything that occurs is causally consistent with that logic. If there were other logics that conflict with this rational account, then there would need to exist a meta-logic that all the rules of the lower logics are logical. If no such meta-logic existed, then the world would be irrational.

I'm a bit worried that this lets through the door certain constructs which are self-supporting and self-consistent yet unfounded in any reality. Much of the best Sci-Fi portrays a world very similar to our own but one in which a single physical restriction is removed. Without this tiny connection to reality a rich new narration becomes possible. This is generally very obvious when we see it so we hardly ever fall for it. But when people propose concepts like "beings" that exist outside of space-time etc. we open-up a fertile breeding ground for the imagination which most people seem to take for granted.

According to this theist approach, God is deeply connected to this meta-logic, and therefore theism is a rational approach to the world. Since atheism says that ultimately a brute fact is responsible for the universe, it is saying that there is no meta-logic which ultimately determines the nature of the universe.

But this all smacks of who dreams-up the best definitions. I keep on getting this vision of you as a German tourist getting up at 5AM to get his towel down at the side of the swimming pool. You once remarked that the sun was up, the spot was empty (or something like that). But ignoring your claim that "atheism says that ultimately a brute fact is responsible for the universe" I can re-write everything you say here and substitute "Universe" with "God" and draw the conclusion that atheism is rational.

I think Columbus makes some very good points; there is an awful lot of personification being hung on this "uncaused cause", which is why I'm drawn back to this question of "God's Will". Understanding some of "God's methods" makes it quite clear to me that people have been making some pretty bad guesses in this area.

Therefore atheism is an irrational view since there are things (e.g., multiverse) which have no reason for their existence. (You can't say that they were the only possible thing to exist since possibilty would be referring to some meta-logic which is non-material and aware that the universe must have a particular brute fact. That would be assuming God.)

I think this is a massive oversimplification. Loose talk of material and non-material is what sets you up in business here, but as you well know everything is up for grabs in the realm of quantum cosmology. Rather than argue the toss over the intricate details and implications of something like the Holographic Principle, I think it's much more productive to look at the effects rather than the first cause (as Cathar1950 so wisely suggests) and see if this maps onto the God of the Holy Bible. I think this is the only perspective from which to get a measure of what God might be. After all, no (sane) atheist would deny the existence of the universe in which he lives.

[harvey1]

When we know what God is, then we know that any rational conception requires God's existence, and therefore it makes no sense to say what causes a rational conception since the attempt to make sense of a rational conception is a rational conception. God just is.

What does the verb "is" or "to be" mean when it is applied to "God"?Can I assume that when you say that "God just is", you are referring to the second definition?

No. It means that it is non-sensical in asking what causes causation. You need to assume the concept of causation to ask what causes it. The concept "just is" meaning that there is nothing more fundamental that this concept that doesn't require using this concept to define it. Your dictionary definition doesn't cut it since something can "exist" and still be reduced (e.g., water exists, but is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms). What this particular use of "just is" means is that there is nothing more fundamental than God.

Again, you might say that a multiverse can require that "there is nothing more fundamental than a multiverse," but this is irrational since we can imagine a different configuration to a multiverse (e.g., nothing at all) which could be the case but just happens to not be the case. In the case of God, there is no other possibility that could be the case since any other case would ultimately need causation and therefore would reduce to there being a God. In the case of the multiverse, it is because there is no reason why the multiverse happens to have that particular configuration (a configuration that coincidentally allows for inflationary universes) that it is irrational. We have a process (inflating universes) that have no ultimate explanation and are therefore is an irrational universe.

[harvey1]

I'm a bit worried that this lets through the door certain constructs which are self-supporting and self-consistent yet unfounded in any reality.

I'm not saying that every possible universe has actuality. What I'm saying is that "everything that occurs is causally consistent with [some fundamental] logic [to the world]." If there are logics that exist which are not conforming to this logic, then either there exists a meta-logic that can show that these logics are somehow all compatible, or you have an irrational world. For example, if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are actually incompatible, then the world is irrational. That means that there are no ultimate rules by which the world plays by and that this anarchy could affect any situation at a whim. I believe we live in a rational world, and that we ought to believe this to be the case to be rational (just like ST88 is right in believing that pens don't just float for no rational reason).

But this all smacks of who dreams-up the best definitions. I keep on getting this vision of you as a German tourist getting up at 5AM to get his towel down at the side of the swimming pool. You once remarked that the sun was up, the spot was empty (or something like that). But ignoring your claim that "atheism says that ultimately a brute fact is responsible for the universe" I can re-write everything you say here and substitute "Universe" with "God" and draw the conclusion that atheism is rational.

I don't think you can. As I just mentioned to Tim, the multiverse could be other than what it is by your own admission, and therefore there is no rational reason that it was that way versus this other way. That is what it means to be irrational.

I think Columbus makes some very good points; there is an awful lot of personification being hung on this "uncaused cause", which is why I'm drawn back to this question of "God's Will". Understanding some of "God's methods" makes it quite clear to me that people have been making some pretty bad guesses in this area.

I'm not talking about any of those things. I'm talking about a very particular technical issue here. Rationality involves having reasons for something being the case, versus not. Whenever you depart from that, you are introducing irrational processes. This is why supernaturalism can be an irrational claim since the laws of nature are considered to be rational rules that the universe adheres to (or even must adhere to), and supernaturalism (in some forms) says that God is under no constraints to maintain a rational process. God can alter the universe's coarse by utilizing fully irrational processes. I reject that kind of supernaturalism. Atheists have unwittingly accepted mysticism (an irrational account to the world) by relying on an irrational state of the original initial conditions. This has nothing to do with personal/impersonal accounts of first cause, it has to do with relying on an irrational perspective. There is no reason, in this account, that the universe cannot continue to act irrational. Hence, the atheist really has no reason for citing parsimony other than a misguided notion that it helps their cause when they really have no justified reason for referring to that concept. Only theists have a right to claim that parsimony is a law.

as you well know everything is up for grabs in the realm of quantum cosmology.

There really is logic to the madness of quantum theory. Anyone who claims that quantum theory is complete madness does not understand quantum theory.

I think it's much more productive to look at the effects rather than the first cause (as Cathar1950 so wisely suggests) and see if this maps onto the God of the Holy Bible. I think this is the only perspective from which to get a measure of what God might be. After all, no (sane) atheist would deny the existence of the universe in which he lives.

Well, this is entirely different than what this thread asks. It does not ask whether the First Cause argument is a good argument for Yahweh's existence.

[QED]

I'm not saying that every possible universe has actuality. What I'm saying is that "everything that occurs is causally consistent with [some fundamental] logic [to the world]."

Alright then, I can accept that. But again, when you state that "In the case of God, there is no other possibility that could be the case since any other case would ultimately need causation and therefore would reduce to there being a God" God is just your preferred label for the that which is determined to be the first cause.

I think it's much more productive to look at the effects rather than the first cause (as Cathar1950 so wisely suggests) and see if this maps onto the God of the Holy Bible. I think this is the only perspective from which to get a measure of what God might be. After all, no (sane) atheist would deny the existence of the universe in which he lives.

Well, this is entirely different than what this thread asks. It does not ask whether the First Cause argument is a good argument for Yahweh's existence.

Well, I'm not so sure, but we really ought to discuss that sometime...

What the First Cause Argument Proves
There are several objections to the first cause argument, but if it is successful then it establishes the existence of a Creator that transcends time. Combined with the ontological argument, this would give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal Creator.

This would not quite be the same as proving all that Christianity and the other monotheistic religions teach about God, but it would be close. It would tell us that God exists, and what he is like, and that he created the universe, but it would not tell us why he created the universe or what we ought to do about it.

The final two arguments speak more about God’s purpose in Creation, and so at least hold out the hope of completing this picture. The first of these two arguments is the argument from design.