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]

"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.

So, you didn't really type those comments to cause those words to appear here? Who did?

[Scrotum]

So, you didn't really type those comments to cause those words to appear here? Who did?

There has to be no cause for me to type these words. Nor is it in anyway relevant to what we are talking about.

You can say, to make it simple for you, as you seem to have a hard time understanding this, that you can use "cause", our human made concept, to explain things, such as, "Scrotum wrote does words to try to Explain to Harvey about basic concepts whcih humans use to rationalise the world", this, would be a "cause". But It does not need to be, only the subject can decide.

[harvey1]

You can say, to make it simple for you, as you seem to have a hard time understanding this, that you can use "cause", our human made concept, to explain things, such as, "Scrotum wrote does words to try to Explain to Harvey about basic concepts whcih humans use to rationalise the world", this, would be a "cause". But It does not need to be, only the subject can decide.

If we can eliminate human concepts such as "cause," can we say that your post doesn't have any "rationality" to it either because that is also a human concept?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

If we can eliminate human concepts such as "cause," can we say that your post doesn't have any "rationality" to it either because that is also a human concept?

It is, after all, philosophy!!!

I would make the point that nature will behave the way it will whether or not we are here to observe it and invent mental constructs called laws. It does not follow automatically that these mental construct are the "cause" of that behavior, nor is it evidence that another intelligence is needed for nature to do what it does, though it is evidence that constraining rules(laws) do actually exist, tied into the very structure of the chaos of particles and forces that we call reality. The initial cause of the beginning of space/time is not now known and may never be known. If you say that God said"Let there be light..." and the Big Bang happened, I have no quarrel with that Belief. It is not one I share and there is absolutely no evidence supporting your point, so it is no more than a guess, as is any "story" of what happened "before" time began(a meaningless concept). Maybe natural laws are such in that "condition" that universes are REQUIRED to balance some property, noone knows.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

I would make the point that nature will behave the way it will whether or not we are here to observe it and invent mental constructs called laws. It does not follow automatically that these mental construct are the "cause" of that behavior, nor is it evidence that another intelligence is needed for nature to do what it does, though it is evidence that constraining rules(laws) do actually exist, tied into the very structure of the chaos of particles and forces that we call reality.

When you say constraining rules exist, this is to say that laws have a metaphysical status. That is, the rules cause natural behavior to occur and, as you say, these absolute constraining rules are inaccessible to observations. That's why they are metaphysical rules. Whether humans know what these rules ultimately are is beside the point.

The initial cause of the beginning of space/time is not now known and may never be known. If you say that God said"Let there be light..." and the Big Bang happened, I have no quarrel with that Belief. It is not one I share and there is absolutely no evidence supporting your point, so it is no more than a guess, as is any "story" of what happened "before" time began(a meaningless concept). Maybe natural laws are such in that "condition" that universes are REQUIRED to balance some property, noone knows.

If you say that laws (constraining rules) actually exist, then you are committed to those laws being able to restrict conceivable worlds that are not possible according to those laws (by definition of "constraining rules").

[harvey1]

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

No, atheist philosophers show a great deal of disagreement in their views. I think the lack of debate between atheists here does not reflect well on you guys. You guys aren't all part of Arn Rand's atheist group are you? I hear they don't tolerate diverse opinions in their ranks.

[Grumpy]

Harvey1

When you say constraining rules exist, this is to say that laws have a metaphysical status. That is, the rules cause natural behavior to occur and, as you say, these absolute constraining rules are inaccessible to observations. That's why they are metaphysical rules. Whether humans know what these rules ultimately are is beside the point.

You remind me of the story of the rooster who claimed he was responsible for the sun rising, "It's logical," he said"haven't you seen that the sun rises every morning after I crow???"

The rules don't Cause the behavior of nature, they are just descriptions of what nature does and are perfectly accessible and evident by their effect upon that nature. But the limits are part of that nature, not something imposed upon that nature. The gravity and momentum intrinsic in the mass of an object determines how it reacts to the mass around it, not some "intelligence" imposing it's will from outside. And the object will never act in any other way but the one allowed by it's intrinsic limits, there is never an instant where it will attempt to do anything else(outside the quantum realm) and then suddenly "think", "I can't do that, god told me not to." Your ability to misunderstand everything so thoroughly is astounding.

If you say that laws (constraining rules) actually exist, then you are committed to those laws being able to restrict conceivable worlds that are not possible according to those laws (by definition of "constraining rules").

The laws have no effect on nature, they are mental constructs, not forces of nature. The limits inherent in nature insure that worlds which are not possible never had a chance to exist, in other words if a world would violate the limits of nature no possible combination of events will allow that world to come into being.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

in other words if a world would violate the limits of nature no possible combination of events will allow that world to come into being.

What do you mean by possible?

[harvey1]

The rules by which the Universe operates are quite real.

If the rules are real, then how are they not immaterial?

[Bugmaster]

The rules by which the Universe operates are quite real.

If the rules are real, then how are they not immaterial?

I guess it depends, again, on what you mean by "immaterial". I've always assumed that "immaterial" means "untestable", in which case the rules are clearly not immaterial.

So... again, what does "immaterial" mean, according to your definition ?