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?

[ST88]

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?

Hardly. First, assuming there is a valid concept called "first cause", then the God hypothesis is but one explanation. It is a subset of the hypotheses that appeal to magic in order to resolve themselves*. The particular first cause from which our current universe arose gives us virtually no information about a pre-Big Bang condition, so you'd have to assume that it is at least equally possible that there either is or isn't one. However, astrophysics tells us that, if there were a Big Bang, there must have been a pre-Big Bang condition, and that condition is either some unknown but natural condition where the concept of "first" makes no sense at all, or else magic.

*Unless you're a pantheist, of course, in which case you could claim all possible magical conditions as that God.

[harvey1]

Hardly. First, assuming there is a valid concept called "first cause", then the God hypothesis is but one explanation. It is a subset of the hypotheses that appeal to magic in order to resolve themselves*. The particular first cause from which our current universe arose gives us virtually no information about a pre-Big Bang condition, so you'd have to assume that it is at least equally possible that there either is or isn't one. However, astrophysics tells us that, if there were a Big Bang, there must have been a pre-Big Bang condition, and that condition is either some unknown but natural condition where the concept of "first" makes no sense at all, or else magic.

ST, would you agree that causality is a requirement of a rational event? So, for example, if a pen that is nearest to you immediately began to hover 7 feet off the ground, and science studied it and came back with absolutely no rational reason why this has happened, would you consider that an example of an irrational event?

[ST88]

ST, would you agree that causality is a requirement of a rational event? So, for example, if a pen that is nearest to you immediately began to hover 7 feet off the ground, and science studied it and came back with absolutely no rational reason why this has happened, would you consider that an example of an irrational event?

The question is worded oddly.

I would probably wonder what kind of a trick Penn & Teller were playing on me, question my sanity, then wonder about all things in heaven and earth, horatio. Probably in that order. So if all rational explanations were exhausted (including my brain's capacity for hallucination), then there would have to be a different sort of rational explanation. I don't consider events to be irrational, just statements and people. If it happened, there's a reason that it happened, some kind of mechanism or intelligent entity that was able to lift the pen. If that mechanism is beyond our current scientific capability for understanding, then it's an event beyond our current scientific capability for understanding. At that point, it's still an event that happened, a rational event, but the explanation is not available. So either science needs to improve its instruments, an intelligence was trying to communicate in some sort of pen-lifting language, or I should stop ingesting those funny mushrooms.

[NGR]

Is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

No not really, it is simply idle speculation. Our investigations to date suggest a commencement point for our Universe but the conditions at this commencement point and the circumstances that led to this point are simply unknown. To speculate about such things is fun but not very productive.

On a Blog site I regularly peruse, there was a recent discussion that veered onto religious matters and a comment was made that made a lot of sense to me, so much so that I kept a copy for later reference. This thread seems an appropriate place to quote it.

"I'm willing to consider that the universe had a beginning. It certainly seems that way from what we know today. To the best of my knowledge, we have only hazy speculations as to how our (or any other) universe came into existence. Conditions “before” our universe are inaccessible to us, and may not even be meaningful. If you wish to say “AND god(s) exist”, again, why not? The only good reason I can think of is “the gods dunnit” has been proposed as an explanation countless times, but (so far) never correctly. This seems to serve mainly as an idle place-holder until someone with enterprise, curiosity, and a sufficient knowledge base comes up with a more useful explanation, one that actually works."

[Bro Dave]

Our science, which is in its infancy, is just beginning to grasp that time, like space, is "maliable". We are linear "time-thinkers", and although we understand that matter is mostly space, we argue as though it is mostly "solid". Our whole concept of First Cause, starts out with a time assumption, of "First". Time and space are themselves a creation, and the "Prime Mover" is hardly subject to the rules He,(gender neutral) creates.

Bro Dave

[Being1]

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?

I agree that everything has a cause. I don't think, however, that it is logical to say that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. Why should this Causal Creative Being - God - always be seen as something separate to existence? I am the cause of many of the experiences that I have in my life, but I am not separate from them. They are a part of me, and together it is the totality of what I am. Surely it is more logical to apply this experiential knowledge to the bigger picture?

[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?

I agree that everything has a cause. I don't think, however, that it is logical to say that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. Why should this Causal Creative Being - God - always be seen as something separate to existence? I am the cause of many of the experiences that I have in my life, but I am not separate from them. They are a part of me, and together it is the totality of what I am. Surely it is more logical to apply this experiential knowledge to the bigger picture?

Yes, but you, yourself are a caused being. If you say that the First Cause, is part of the caused universe, then it, being part of everything must have had a cause. You say that everything has a cause, therefore the God, if it exists and is to be included in the set you call everything, must have a cause. Where did your God come from? The standard theological answer is that God always has been. God is uncaused. Therefore, God is not to be included in the set of all caused things.

[harvey1]

So if all rational explanations were exhausted (including my brain's capacity for hallucination), then there would have to be a different sort of rational explanation. I don't consider events to be irrational... If that mechanism is beyond our current scientific capability for understanding, then it's an event beyond our current scientific capability for understanding. At that point, it's still an event that happened, a rational event, but the explanation is not available.

Exactly, so why would you say:

First, assuming there is a valid concept called "first cause", then the God hypothesis is but one explanation... so you'd have to assume that it is at least equally possible that there either is or isn't one... that condition is either some unknown but natural condition where the concept of "first" makes no sense at all, or else magic.

The pen floating in the middle of the air without cause is like a multiverse existing without cause. Regardless how long it has been floating (e.g., infinite amount of time), there must be a reason why it is there in the first place--unless you are prepared to nullify what you said about the pen requiring a rational cause even if we do not know what it is.

This is the reason why the first cause argument is a good argument for God's existence. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the temporal origin of a universe (which neither Aristotle or Aquinas believed), it was always about why a pen is hanging in the middle of air. There must be some cause to that phenomena. And, that cause is obviously God.

[QED]

The standard theological answer is that God always has been. God is uncaused. Therefore, God is not to be included in the set of all caused things.

The pen floating in the middle of the air without cause is like a multiverse existing without cause. Regardless how long it has been floating (e.g., infinite amount of time), there must be a reason why it is there in the first place--unless you are prepared to nullify what you said about the pen requiring a rational cause even if we do not know what it is.

This is the reason why the first cause argument is a good argument for God's existence. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the temporal origin of a universe (which neither Aristotle or Aquinas believed), it was always about why a pen is hanging in the middle of air. There must be some cause to that phenomena. And, that cause is obviously God.

So God is allowed to be uncaused but universes are not. Is this discrimination really justified? Perhaps Harvey might like to give his argument another airing here (I've never properly understood it).