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]

The word Laws, is a human concept. We use it to define certain things, such as gravity... There is no "beginning" or "end" or inbetween, just a way of explaning this for us, Humans.. Get it?

So, does that mean that you think there are no causes for events that happen?

[melikio]

The following post was not strictly related to the topic here, but it fits (I think) a discussion related to the balance between knowledge and beliefs (whetehr they be based upon pure fact or faith alone). I don't think there is any escaping the sysnthesis of thought, experience and faith... into belief-systems; they are inevitable (IMHO).

First we have the semantics, which obviously makes a big difference between steadfastness and "willfull ignorance". Of course, Christianity demands blind obediance, even if what is stated is not true. We can use several examples in the Bible (which nowdays, have been "re-interpreted").

No, not "blind obdedience", but a certain adherence to those things which one may believe are true. Not all Christians believe the exact same things, and they likely cannot as human beings.

There is a thread discussing just what "Christianity" is, and I think we would have to agree that defining it is fairly complex. But I can assure you that not ALL "Christians" are living by "blind" faith, anymore than some materislistic atheists (if it isn't "matter", it's not there) live by blind science; I've met MANY secularly-oriented people who understand less of the "science" which makes the world real to them, than most Christians. As a matter of fact, many "Christians" know science to a level which rivals anyone else on the planet.

According to the Bible, the Earth, as example, is Flat. This, for some reason, would not be accepted by Christians if asked today, but this does not change point, does it. We also would have simple problems with "Adam & Eve" populating the world etcetera.

Yeah, there are things like that which tell me to NOT take all of the Bible "literally"; not to say that something taught in a symbolic manner is useless.

But then again, we have people like Harvey, whom uses skilled rhetoric to try to prove something that does not have any proof for existence. I admire his dedication to this, but in all seriousness. How come we do not believe in Pink Flying elephants named George?

I see your point. There is a time/place where what is most "practical" or what people can truly relate to, matters more than what people SAY is/isn't true. I believe Jesus made that point, when He somewhat short-circuited the religious leaders of his day; He basically made LOVE more important than religion itself.

Well, thats because there is no evidence for this. So how come Christians, and people like Harvey, insist on a God, when there is more evidence for a pink elephant named George, why is this?

Because people (human beings, at least some of us) are more than the sum of the "logical" thoughts we possess or have mastery over. Some people (for better or worse), need more than the point-blank facts of life; they need to also understand how they really fit into a massive and sometimes cold reality, on a level which makes sense to THEM... personally. I don't make a point of reading science books for fun (I work on hi-tech stuff), but I've never seen one book of facts, that can help a person at the levels where we feel, wonder, trust, hope or dream.

For example, there are people who conceive children, feed them, keep them alive...etc., then there are good and nuturing parents who give the human beings in their care all they need to literally live life AND to make the lives of those around them even better.

I really don't know too many Christians who take the entire Bible literally, I know of more who TALK as if it should be taken literally (do as I say, not as I do). They are often misguided or worse (big fat hypocrites).

I assume its fear.
In general, religious people have a fear of Death and responsibility, and if you would have a God, this would disappear. No matter if its a illusion or not, they do not care, as long as they have their imaginary pillow.

You don't have to assume that it's "fear". It would take the biggest fool of phoney in the world to say they do not fear anything. Sometimes fear is the primary motivator in people (hatred running closely with it). It is natural and very troubling to people to experience fear.

When I my very close friend had cancer a couple of years back, and I went of the "scientific" aspects with him, that was not ALL that he needed to make it through the problem. It was as obvious as the hideously un-healing wound on his body. The doctors (doing a great job indeed), related the "fact" of life/death to my friend; they could not and did not know what my friends was feeling at the deepest levels (all his fears, hopes, dreams, desires... being strummed out of the blue, like a loud, dissonant guitar chord in a rock band). Reality and the facts of it, were not all that he needed, and it was so evident that I will NEVER forget it. At that point, a simple "hug" and a few "tears" did more than the knowledge we possesed combined. Human beings (despite what they know or believe they know), need something more than knowledge itself and always will.

The problem is of course, when they force the next generation into this ignorance, and destroy their possibility of intelligence and evolution.

ALL human beings suffer from some "ignorance" (whether they realize it or not); some more than others. Still, I'm not anti-religion, because it is exactly what some people need and the only thing that many have access to. We may not personally agree with certain religious views/doctrines (or at all), but the type of thing which religion does for one who really looks into it, ultimately becomes a thing of substance within the person subjecting themselves to it.

I've met MANY atheists who were "taught" to NOT believe; by parents, teachers or whatever. Not all had good reasons to not believe in or oppose the existence of a god. I could ALWAYS relate to that, because I was taught to respect the right of others to believe as they would; not to pursue any forced or coerced conversion to what I personally believed.

Unfortunately, there are people on ALL sides of various thoughts/beliefs, who are more interested in being "RIGHT" than they are in being of "practical" benefit to their fellow human beings. I don't mean to be harsh (not at all), but it is that kind of person who can take near "anything" (from a material object, to a system of thought), and suck the humaness out of others (like an anti-humanist vampire). I've seen them wearing the "Christian" label, and I've encountered them as "atheists".

Ignorance (of truth) and knowledge (of what exists) are not total answer unto themselves; the solutions themselves (for mankind) have a lot more to do how that "knowlege" (or "ignorance") is handled by individuals who possess or experience either.

I'll take a kind and mentally "balanced" person (any day) over a brilliant, know-it-all, a__hole.
(Anyone who perhaps had that certain boss or employer I'm thinking of, knows what I'm getting at.)

-Mel-

[Cathar1950]

melikio wrote:

I believe Jesus made that point, when He somewhat short-circuited the religious leaders of his day; He basically made LOVE more important than religion itself.

Rabbi Hillil said the same thing.
A hug is always nice.

[Grumpy]

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 ?

Of course you are distorting what I'm saying, it seems to be the only way you can reply to people.

The laws are a figment of our mind. They are also descriptions of the rules nature is seen to obey. Those rules are intrinsic to nature but the laws we write describing those rules are just the best mental model we can construct, but being constructs, they have no material reality whereas the intrinsic rules do.

Causuality is dependent upon the outcome of all of the events that have gone before all the way back to the beginning of time and probably before the point we recognize as that beginning. The physical principles of that beginning may not be understood at this time(and may never) but there is no need to compound that lack of knowledge by the addition of superstitious nonsense for which there is no evidence to that knowledge gap.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

Of course you are distorting what I'm saying, it seems to be the only way you can reply to people.

LOL. These are your words with the word "law" substituted with the words you choose to define law!

The laws are a figment of our mind. They are also descriptions of the rules nature is seen to obey. Those rules are intrinsic to nature but the laws we write describing those rules are just the best mental model we can construct, but being constructs, they have no material reality whereas the intrinsic rules do.

Okay, so you do believe in laws afterall. You just call them "intrinsic rules," right? That would imply that any effect is the result of these intrinsic laws, right? Is the universe caused by them?

Causuality is dependent upon the outcome of all of the events that have gone before all the way back to the beginning of time and probably before the point we recognize as that beginning. The physical principles of that beginning may not be understood at this time(and may never) but there is no need to compound that lack of knowledge by the addition of superstitious nonsense for which there is no evidence to that knowledge gap.

How can you have a beginning unless there are laws that cause for something to begin? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[harvey1]

The following post was not strictly related to the topic here, but it fits (I think) a discussion related to the balance between knowledge and beliefs (whetehr they be based upon pure fact or faith alone). I don't think there is any escaping the sysnthesis of thought, experience and faith... into belief-systems; they are inevitable (IMHO).

Again, isn't a wonderful thing that theists on this forum can show that we can very much disagree with each other, whereas atheists seem to be unable to demonstrate anything but the most shallowest disagreement among themselves (perhaps out of fear of looking ununified and weak?)? I love being able to show our strength in that way.

Anyway, to emphasize that strength, let me put forward my strong disagreement to the relevance of your post with respect to this thread. I think that pushing for a psychological or emotional answer to the problem is not in anyway a justification of theism. Actually, in my mind, it seems to actually count against theism since it gives the impression that theism must depend on psychological arguments. This is the sure sign of a failing belief system, IMHO. Of course, I don't take it away from anyone to believe like that, but I think that it is much more prudent to answer the questions.

[Bugmaster]

I think this is the standard ontology/epistemology confusion. The Universe operates according to some rules; we call them "laws". Over the years, we have come up with some models of these rules that may or may not be true; we call these models "laws". That's the problem: we're using the same word to describe two different things.

The rules by which the Universe operates are quite real, but our models of these rules exist solely within our heads (of course, our heads are part of the Universe too, but that's another story). If we were omniscient, we could construct 100% accurate models of the Universe's rules, but we're not, so we're stuck with our inaccurate models for now.

[Bugmaster]

Again, isn't a wonderful thing that theists on this forum can show that we can very much disagree with each other, whereas atheists seem to be unable to demonstrate anything but the most shallowest disagreement among themselves (perhaps out of fear of looking ununified and weak?)?

Either that, or maybe it's because our worldview is just so much more coherent than yours :-)

[QED]

I think this is the standard ontology/epistemology confusion. The Universe operates according to some rules; we call them "laws". Over the years, we have come up with some models of these rules that may or may not be true; we call these models "laws". That's the problem: we're using the same word to describe two different things.

The rules by which the Universe operates are quite real, but our models of these rules exist solely within our heads (of course, our heads are part of the Universe too, but that's another story). If we were omniscient, we could construct 100% accurate models of the Universe's rules, but we're not, so we're stuck with our inaccurate models for now.

Harvey has yet to convince me that we haven't created ourselves a false dichotomy in the shape of the material versus the immaterial.

[Scrotum]

The word Laws, is a human concept. We use it to define certain things, such as gravity... There is no "beginning" or "end" or inbetween, just a way of explaning this for us, Humans.. Get it?

So, does that mean that you think there are no causes for events that happen?

"Cause" is a word for us humans to try to explain certain things. There have to be no "cause", as its a Human made subjective. The same as "meaning of life", it is man-made.