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.

[Artie]

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.

How the universe appeared from nothing:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... thing.html

[LiamOS]

For gravity to be eternal there would have to be something else that was eternal, a material object.

Hawking wasn't talking about Newtonian gravity; we've come a way since then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

[Bust Nak]

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

...

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.

I think the problem with First cause/uncaused is that one has to be able to rule out infinite regression. All the attempts I've seen for ruling it out are question begging.

[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 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).

Well.. I do not see any evidence that Aristotle's idea is accurate or truthful.

As for 'Dark Energy', I don't know what it is, and neither do you. We know it's effects, but we don't know WHAT it is, or the mechanism behind it. When that is answered, then maybe you will have a point, but invoking the unknown to solve a problem is not rational. "I don't know" does not mean 'God', and even the having a first cause does not mean that the 'first cause' is God... that is a leap of logic that is not logical at all.

[scourge99]

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.

Let us assume that there is an uncaused thing which caused the universe. I still don't see how it must be intelligent, a being, or all powerful. The only conclusions we can make is that it must be some thing. It must be uncaused. And it must have created the universe somehow.

A god definitely could fit that criteria but that is not that same thing as saying that it could only be a god that can fit that criteria. Even if we assume there is an uncaused causer, that doesn't get us any closer to proving or demonstrating its a god.

[StephanM]

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.

Let us assume that there is an uncaused thing which caused the universe. I still don't see how it must be intelligent, a being, or all powerful. The only conclusions we can make is that it must be some thing. It must be uncaused. And it must have created the universe somehow.

A god definitely could fit that criteria but that is not that same thing as saying that it could only be a god that can fit that criteria. Even if we assume there is an uncaused causer, that doesn't get us any closer to proving or demonstrating its a god.

Since nobody addressed it before, am I allowed to quote myself?

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.

[Ionian_Tradition]

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.

Then I am inclined to ask, from what substance did this "uncaused cause" create the universe? Most first cause proponents claim the uncaused cause created the universe from "nothing". However, "nothing" is not a "thing" upon which causal influence can be exerted. It is the absence of all things. Thus "nothing" is not a thing from which other things can be created. This creates a problem for the first cause argument. To say that the "uncaused cause" created the universe "ex nihilo" is to claim that the uncaused cause affected nothing and yet somehow, by virtue of having affected nothing, produced a corresponding effect (the universe). But a cause which affects nothing cannot be the cause of any corresponding effect. This is because there can exist no causal correlation, or relationship shared, between an affectless cause (a cause which affects nothing) and an effect which is produced as a result of causal affect. This would be the equivalent of fallaciously claiming that a carpenter could effectively serve as the cause of a table without ever having touched the wood of which the table is comprised. This curious line of reasoning unwittingly places the first cause proponent in a rather awkward position in that the very idea of "creatio ex nihilo" serves to undermine the affect/effect relationship necessary for any causal sequence of events to occur, thus resulting in an argument for a universe emerging uncaused (unaffected) from "nothing". It might therefore be said, rather ironically, that it is in fact first cause proponents which truly argue that "something comes from nothing".

[Ionian_Tradition]

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.

Let us assume that there is an uncaused thing which caused the universe. I still don't see how it must be intelligent, a being, or all powerful. The only conclusions we can make is that it must be some thing. It must be uncaused. And it must have created the universe somehow.

A god definitely could fit that criteria but that is not that same thing as saying that it could only be a god that can fit that criteria. Even if we assume there is an uncaused causer, that doesn't get us any closer to proving or demonstrating its a god.

Since nobody addressed it before, am I allowed to quote myself?

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.

Greetings StephanM,

What might compel an entity, uncompelled by prior causes, to choose anything I wonder? Are you arguing for spontaneous action in the form of uncaused choice? If so, I do not see why entities lacking intelligence cannot perform similarly uncaused actions. Moreover, I cannot see how a spontaneous uncaused/ uninformed action is to be considered a conscious/intelligent "choice" in any meaningful way.

[StephanM]

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.

Then I am inclined to ask, from what substance did this "uncaused cause" create the universe? Most first cause proponents claim the uncaused cause created the universe from "nothing". However, "nothing" is not a "thing" upon which causal influence can be exerted. It is the absence of all things. Thus "nothing" is not a thing from which other things can be created. This creates a problem for the first cause argument. To say that the "uncaused cause" created the universe "ex nihilo" is to claim that the uncaused cause affected nothing and yet somehow, by virtue of having affected nothing, produced a corresponding effect (the universe). But a cause which affects nothing cannot be the cause of any corresponding effect. This is because there can exist no causal correlation, or relationship shared, between an affectless cause (a cause which affects nothing) and an effect which is produced as a result of causal affect. This would be the equivalent of fallaciously claiming that a carpenter could effectively serve as the cause of a table without ever having touched the wood of which the table is comprised. This curious line of reasoning unwittingly places the first cause proponent in a rather awkward position in that the very idea of "creatio ex nihilo" serves to undermine the affect/effect relationship necessary for any causal sequence of events to occur, thus resulting in an argument for a universe emerging uncaused (unaffected) from "nothing". It might therefore be said, rather ironically, that it is in fact first cause proponents which truly argue that "something comes from nothing".

Beautiful question. It goes into kabbalistic ideas deeper than I know much about, but I'll give a basic comparison. I can't think of any reason to accept this explanation without appealing to Judaism as a foundation, but you can see that it's feasible.

Think of a man with a purple coat on. Now think of him running along a dirt road on a beautiful countryside. Does that man exist? Sort of; not in the same sense that you do. But you could imagine a whole world for him, and you gave all of it its own level of existence without needing an existing imaginary world. In that way, you could say our universe wasn't created completely ex nihilo, but as a new sub-existence.

Again, I'm by no means an expert in Kabbalah, just giving a rough comparison.

[StephanM]

Greetings StephanM,

What might compel an entity, uncompelled by prior causes, to choose anything I wonder?

This would have to be something internal to the entity

Are you arguing for spontaneous action in the form of uncaused choice? If so, I do not see why entities lacking intelligence cannot perform similarly uncaused actions.

An action without understanding, evaluating, and choosing is not a choice. I don't see any options other than causation and choice, so if it's not causation, it must be choice. Can you think of a third option?

Moreover, I cannot see how a spontaneous uncaused/ uninformed action is to be considered a conscious/intelligent "choice" in any meaningful way.

I don't think I suggested this