Bernard Russell and the First Cause

[4gold]

In arguing why God was no better a reason for the First Cause than the Universe, famed atheist Bernard Russell said, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.”

This was said at a time when Hubble was only making preliminary observations about the expanding universe. Russell had died long before the Big Bang became popular and well-accepted scientific theory.

Now that it is well-accepted that our universe did indeed have a beginning, and it's not due to the poverty of our imaginations, do you think Russell would have changed his argument if he had lived long enough? Does Russell's first cause argument still have legs? Why or why not?

[QED]

Hi QED,

Thought you'd find this 'interesting':
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html

No, I'm sorry to say I didn't. I glazed over after two or three screenfulls. I doubt if I got the proper gist of it, but the suggestion that without a concept of God man will go potty does nothing to "switch-on" the truth of God's existence. At most it can only motivate a wish. And what kind of mistake would it be to talk about the atheist rejecting, struggling or fighting against God anyway? I would suggest that understanding the nature of that kind of mistake is an essential prerequisite of conducting an impartial analysis. Perhaps you could pull out something from that essay to tempt me back into it.