Arguments against first cause/uncaused cause?

[BearCavalry]

I've always believed that the argument of first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God.

It doesn't prove whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jainists have the right idea about God. It doesn't prove whether God is good or evil. It doesn't prove whether God is a personal, loving entity or something as impersonal as some self-causing physics concept that propogates the galaxy.

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space. I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

[Jax Agnesson]

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space.

How can it become self-causing? Wouldn't it have to be self-causing eternally?
How does the lack of any other explanation validate this one?
God is the 'inexplicable explanation'?

[BearCavalry]

I think an infinitely powerful entity permeating time and space would be eternally self-causing, as in it loops through time back on itself.

As for another explanation, I guess you could replace the term 'God' with the term 'singularity' but conceptually, it's still the same thing.

[PREEST]

I think an infinitely powerful entity permeating time and space would be eternally self-causing, as in it loops through time back on itself.

As for another explanation, I guess you could replace the term 'God' with the term 'singularity' but conceptually, it's still the same thing.

This doesn't explain anything. You're actually making this up and saying it explains god. God is not the answer to the questions we can't yet answer.

[BearCavalry]

You what's your suggested explanation? Science?

[McCulloch]

Evidently something must be uncaused. Theists usually posit that whatever is uncaused must be an entity that exists outside of spacetime. Atheists can posit that it is the universe itself that is uncaused. Judge for yourself which scenario makes more sense: the one that needs a being to exist in a realm which we cannot (even in principle) know anything about OR the one that accepts that all that can be shown to exist, in principle, is all that does exist. Hint: use Occam's razor.

[BearCavalry]

Hi McCulloch,

Have you ever seen the end of Men in Black? Basically our whole galaxy is a marble that an alien is playing with. Maybe the whole of spacetime is just that metaphorical marble. But yes, I see your point. If we cannot prove that we're just in a marble, then via Ockam's razor, why even bother? Well played sir.

[Jax Agnesson]

I think an infinitely powerful entity permeating time and space would be eternally self-causing, as in it loops through time back on itself.

If it 'loops back on itself' then that means it was not 'self-causing', until it 'becomes' self causing, in which case something must have caused it.
We're into Doctor Who territory here, aren't we?
Sci-fi is fun, and some of it is philosopy, but we have to remember what the 'fi' means.

Generally, McCulloch has it right. What exists, exists. We don't know how. Maybe it caused itself. Maybe it was created by something else, but that something else, whatever it is or was, maybe caused itself. How does this 'something else' help?

[PREEST]

You what's your suggested explanation? Science?

That's where you and I are different. I have no problem saying that I do not yet know. Theists claim that they know how it all began but with no evidence to make such an assertion. Coming up with random explanations is pointless. But yes, I think science will answer questions for us, far better than speculation can.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I've always believed that the argument of first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God.

It doesn't prove whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jainists have the right idea about God. It doesn't prove whether God is good or evil. It doesn't prove whether God is a personal, loving entity or something as impersonal as some self-causing physics concept that propogates the galaxy.

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space. I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

To begin with God could not permeate all space and time before causing space and time to come into existence. And recall that the strong consensus from Augustine to Einstein is that time is a part of the universe not something outside the universe.

A far as God being so powerful that he/she/it is self-creating – that reminds me of the old story of the man who was so strong he could put his hand in his pants pocket and hold himself out at arm’s length. (Actually it was a bit ruder version I first heard, involving his thumb.) The traditional first cause arguments say instead that God is a Necessary Being. However those arguments come to that conclusion by backtracking from the idea that the universe is contingent in nature and so there must be a non-continent basis for its existence. I am not aware of any argument claiming that God necessarily exists in his/her/its own right even if the universe had not been created. (But I would love to hear it, if anyone has got one. ) Defining God as so powerful as to be self-creating would seem to require first assuming the existence of God.

But self-causing physics also seems to be problematic, unless one can deal with the issue that something of a very precise and apparently arbitrary nature that is nonetheless extremely law abiding could account for its own existence. Spontaneous self generation by quantum fluctuation assumes the pre-existence of the laws of physics including a whole wheelbarrow load of seemingly arbitrary numeric values.

Using the first cause argument to justify the existence of the God of one’s own religion, warts and all, is a popular game but in the end not a valid one. You have recognized that this is an issue. Others on this site have also recognized the issue and sought to justify the exact nature of their God via supplementary arguments. Personally I think that a first cause cannot have any particular attributes to the exclusion of others. Saying ‘infinite’ is one thing because that is the absence of arbitrary limitations. But assigning human like attributes would seem to require a whole lot of explaining.



BTW saying that you are is one thing. Saying what you are is something else again.



Descartes walked into a bar after a hard day of philosophizing. The bartender offered him a Shirley Temple. He replied "I think not."

POOF!