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]

There is no "First cause" explanation outside of the natural laws extant at the moment of the Big Bang. Those laws may have been wildly different than those now operative

That's beside the point. We agree that there are non-material laws that explain why the (meta)universe exists as it does. This is the cause of the universe.

It organizes itself following those natural laws. Nothing(even your pen) can violate those natural laws, thus my first paragraph.

Okay, since you agree that laws exist which are responsible for the universe, why do you allot for the existence of non-physical laws, non-observable laws? Science can't confirm that such laws exist since the laws are immaterial and therefore are metaphysical in principle.

[Bugmaster]

All right, let's pretend that we all agree that the Universe is caused (I know we don't, but let's pretend we do). So, there exists some entity that caused our Universe.

So, why does it follow that this entity must automatically be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, personality-endowed God, who wants us to worship him and obey his commands ? I just don't see the reasoning.

To me, this sounds similar to something our unenlightened ancestors must have thought: "Oh wow, there's a forest fire ! Something must have started it; fires don't just spontaneously occur. Only Loki, the bad-tempered pyromaniacal trikster deity could've done such a thing. Clearly, then, forest fires are proof of Loki's existence !"

[harvey1]

All right, let's pretend that we all agree that the Universe is caused (I know we don't, but let's pretend we do). So, there exists some entity that caused our Universe. So, why does it follow that this entity must automatically be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, personality-endowed God, who wants us to worship him and obey his commands ? I just don't see the reasoning. To me, this sounds similar to something our unenlightened ancestors must have thought: "Oh wow, there's a forest fire ! Something must have started it; fires don't just spontaneously occur. Only Loki, the bad-tempered pyromaniacal trikster deity could've done such a thing. Clearly, then, forest fires are proof of Loki's existence !"

I think this post was actually stated very similarly right here. In any case, that's where I posted my response to the questions you raise here.

[Bugmaster]

I think this post was actually stated very similarly right here. In any case, that's where I posted my response to the questions you raise here.

I've read that thread and I didn't see a clear enough explanation.

So, assuming that the First Cause exists, why do you think that it has to be an omni-everything God, who has plans in mind for us human beings, who cares about what we do, who interferes in our affairs to work acts of divine intervention, etc. ?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

That's beside the point. We agree that there are non-material laws that explain why the (meta)universe exists as it does. This is the cause of the universe.

No, we do not agree that there are meta-physical anythings. The cause of the universe will be found in the natural, physical laws WITHIN the universe. Until the expansion of that universe there was no space "outside" of it. Since the expansion the universe DEFINES space, there is still no outside to occupy. The only laws ever seen are these natural laws. There is no basis to accept any cause outside of them. These supernatural musings are the useless products of a mind unable to face reality undiluted.

Okay, since you agree that laws exist which are responsible for the universe, why do you allot for the existence of non-physical laws, non-observable laws? Science can't confirm that such laws exist since the laws are immaterial and therefore are metaphysical in principle.

Science cannot confirm the existence of these figments of your fevered imagination. That which cannot be confirmed(or even detected) is deemed to be nonexistent until valid, positive evidence of it's existence is forthcoming. There are no non-physical non-observable(at least it's effects) laws except in the mind of the philosopher. Meta-physical is a concept with no real existence outside of the mind.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

Science cannot confirm the existence of these figments of your fevered imagination.

All of these dogmatic and rude comments are both unnecessary and unprofessional. I suggest that you re-read the rules that you signed up when you agreed to post on this site.

That which cannot be confirmed(or even detected) is deemed to be nonexistent until valid, positive evidence of it's existence is forthcoming. There are no non-physical non-observable(at least it's effects) laws except in the mind of the philosopher. Meta-physical is a concept with no real existence outside of the mind.

So, you are in effect saying the universe doesn't have any laws. But, you said that the universe did have laws. Which is it? Laws or no laws?

[harvey1]

I've read that thread and I didn't see a clear enough explanation. So, assuming that the First Cause exists, why do you think that it has to be an omni-everything God, who has plans in mind for us human beings, who cares about what we do, who interferes in our affairs to work acts of divine intervention, etc. ?

If we agree that the causal chain terminates with a basic set of principles which are true because there's no possible way that they could be untrue (call it L), then logical necessity L requires there to be something X, then X must satisfy* L. How can you have X satisfying L without the Universe having some form of inherent understanding? Satisfaction in this case is a semantic term since L is a logical statement and that logical statement must be compared to a real world state. The Universe must inherently understand that X satisfies L. Of course, we can label it something else, but that doesn't change the property needed by the Universe for X to satisfy L.

In addition, L and X must be satisfied whereever they can possibly be satisfied, which is throughout spacetime. That requires this property of the Universe to be omniscient. Nothing can prevent L and X from being satisfied if they must necessarily be satisfied, otherwise it would be a violation of logic (i.e., something else would be doing the satisfying and that something else would either be the satisfaction property of the Universe or it would mean the Universe is inconsistent and illogical). So, it must have omnipotence. Lastly, there is no knowledge that exists which this property of the Universe would not know since knowledge requires this satisfactory property to be knowledge. Hence, it is also omniscient.

This property of the Universe could only be the divine omni-three God.



* Satisfaction: If you have a situation where possibility must determine actuality, then you have conceivable actualities which are not actually possible. Let's call those conceivable worlds as CW's and real possible worlds as PW's. Now, in order for CW's not to be PW's, there must be a reason. However, if there is no reason for a CW being a PW, then CW is a PW. A reason is an explanation. Therefore, without an explanation you have CW=PW, and with an explanation you have CW not = PW. An explanation is a cognitive term. An explanation only exists if the explanation is interpreted correctly. If there is no interpretation of the explanation, then the explanation doesn't actually exist. Therefore, without a Mind property inherent in the Universe, there can be no reason, and therefore we cannot achieve an L caused world since there's no way to distinguish conceivable worlds (CW's) from actual possible worlds (PW's), even in principle.

[Grumpy]

So, you are in effect saying the universe doesn't have any laws. But, you said that the universe did have laws. Which is it? Laws or no laws?

Laws are not an idea that the universe had, they existed before we did and required no intelligence to implement or impose. Laws are a construct of our intellect in our attempt to model the things we see in the natural universe. The fact that laws are a construct(a figment) of our imagination does not mean they do not describe the events in the universe accurately(given a sufficient application of the scientific method), it does mean that they do not exist as constraints upon nature imposed from outside nature, they are intrinsic within that nature, therefore:

If we agree that the causal chain terminates with a basic set of principles which are true because there's no possible way that they could be untrue (call it L), then logical necessity L requires there to be something X

You cannot prove any logical necessity therefore your proof of a god's existence is falsified in the first sentence, as for the rest...well I;ll try hard in the future to be less frank and more...

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

Laws are a construct of our intellect in our attempt to model the things we see in the natural universe. The fact that laws are a construct(a figment) of our imagination does not mean they do not describe the events in the universe accurately(given a sufficient application of the scientific method), it does mean that they do not exist as constraints upon nature imposed from outside nature, they are intrinsic within that nature

Okay, so you don't believe there are laws. That is:

Laws=[a construct(a figment) of our imagination]

That makes you a materialist since you don't think there is anything other than material things, right? So, you are in effect saying that the (meta)universe did not have a cause since if all the (meta)universe is material, then there's nothing else to cause that. Right? So, when you said:

The cause of the universe will be found in the natural, physical laws within the universe.

I understand this to mean that:

the cause of the universe will be found in the [construct(a figment) of our imagination] within the universe.

If I'm not distorting what you are saying (and if I am please correct me), then you seem to be saying that any causes in nature will all be found in the figment of our imagination. Does that properly reflect your opinion?

[Scrotum]

Okay, so you don't believe there are laws. That is:

Laws=[a construct(a figment) of our imagination]

That makes you a materialist since you don't think there is anything other than material things, right? So, you are in effect saying that the (meta)universe did not have a cause since if all the (meta)universe is material, then there's nothing else to cause that. Right? So, when you said:

With no mean of insulting you, but are you pretending to be this insular?

The word Laws, is a human concept. We use it to define certain things, such as gravity.


This is exactly the same as "What is the meaning of life". I see this as the perfect parallel. Christians claiming "so whats the meaning.. .etcetera", clearly does not understand the word definitions used in our human concepts.

Meaning, as example, is also a human concept, its for us to explain things in a certain way. This does not mean that there is any meaning. Human life, per say, have no meaning, you make your own meaning. The laws of the Universe, is a way for us to explain actions, reactions etcetera. There is no "beginning" or "end" or inbetween, just a way of explaning this for us, Humans.. Get it ?