i_am_the_head

You have some evidence, or a citation, for the proof that there was a first cause? What reason is there to think the universe is anything but all that exists, and that existence (in whatever form) is a constant.

No, one doesn't need to admit that there is SOMETHING that started it all. There is no reason, that I can think of anyway, that the universe can't just BE.

i_am_the_head

Um, how can love be the first cause when it's a biochemical function of the human brain, thus requiring life (your supposed second cause)?

Jamie_L

AKA I'm_with_I_am_the_head

I agree - if God can "just be", why can't the universe "just be"?

Why does the existence of personal beings or intelligence in the universe necessitate a personal being or intelligence involved in the creation of the universe? There are amoebas in the universe. Should we therefore infer that an amoeba was involved in the creation of the universe?

It's arrogant to assume that we have some special place in the universe just because we're capable of that assumption.

Jamie

CyberShy

CyberShy: Since the first cause did happen it must have been caused.

well, we can observe cause X (ie. my reaction to your reaction)
If my reaction is X, then yours is X-1
Then mines is X-2 and the original topic is X-3

At a certain moment we'll get cause X-(X-1) and that'll be the first cause. Unless you believe that X is infinite there has happened a first cause, and THIS is the evidence I have for it.

If you believe in an infinite number of causes..... I think you're the one that should explain why.

can you explain your question ?

Everything we observe is not just there. (ie. everything can't just BE)
Thus it seems that the proof of evidence is on your side.

because as far as we know everything in our dimension has a cause. Since the universe is a part of our dimension it needs a cause, unless you can proof that it doesn't need any.

The proof of evidence is on your side.
Explain how everything just can be. It's a nice religion, I have to admit. Does it come with any morals ?

CyberShy

GunnerJ

Ed-

This should be interesting...

No, I don't think it is at all. What is "personal?" How is it defined?

And a great many others. I think a Muslim would have to atribute both personal and trancendant to Allah.

And just what, exavlty, does that mean? This seems like more obfuscationism at work. I'd have to say that the primary aspect of the Universe is that it's composed of 99% vacuum. An the 1% (probably less) that isn't empty spcae is 99% helium and hydrogen in a plasma.

Trinity is a "diversity within a unity?" When you tell me what that is, I'll answer it. If you're going to argue that God's nature is reflected in his creation, you'd have to assume that God is mostly empty spcae, with a tiny amout of plasmatic H and He, and an even smaller amount of more complex elements.

Further, You haven't proven, from first cause alone, that god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent. You've only specially defined god as "personal," "trancendant," and a "diversity within a unity." Again, this is a problem of special definitions.

CyberShy-

Well, just look back on our whole "God made a false prophesy" thread. You claim that one reason for believing in God is first cause... as a Xian, I can only assume you meant the Xian god, otherwise, what's the point? For now, you've only clarified your originally obscure meaning. I see no need to apologize for your inablilty to explain your thoughts better.

Pretty big claim... what proof do you have?

Tercel-

Sorry to tell you (or Robert Koons) this, but "intellegence" or "organization" in the universe does not infer an intellegent First Cause of the universe, any more than hydrogen in the universe infers a cause made of hydrogen. Thus, Koon's cosmological argument, that there is a "natural stopping point" for the universe, fails because we have no way of knowing what this stopping point is. An uncaused universe is still makes as much sense as an uncaused First Cause. Perahps more, since we have do direct evidence for a First Cause of any kind.

Koyaanisqatsi

Of course, the universe can also be infinite, meaning that it did not have a first, second or quadrillionth anything. According to some quantum theorists, the universe is simultaneous as well as existing in a state of infinite possibility until observed, which would mean that we--the observers--are what actually "cause" the universe. Literally.

The fact that we don't know, however, does not mean that we should just arbitrarily define the unknown as "known," (aka, "God" or even "Supernatural First Causer," to coin a phrase).

Personifying the unknown serves only one purpose. Now, which cult member in here already knows what that purpose would be?

i_am_the_head

I don't necessarily believe one way or the other - I'm a weak atheist. My contention is that you assert there must be a first cause, when I don't think any such thing can be asserted with any certainty.

Why? If the world to me seems to be a result of cause and effect, why is it "simpler" to assume a first cause? I've never seen a first cause - I have seen a chain of causality. Why should I assume the existence of a first cause (which hasn't been encountered) and reject the chain of causality (which has been encountered)?

To paraphrase, if the universe is "everything that exists" then what reason is there to assume that existence isn't a constant - why assume that the universe had to begin to exist?

The universe is a part of our dimension? I think you have that backwards. Our visible dimensions, and time, are a part of the universe. Hence, it would seem that causality is a result of the universe - not the universe as a result of causality.

I won't bother addressing materialism as a religion, or atheism for that matter. Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, although I'm not surprised when a theist goes for misdirection and obfuscation. Ditto for the morality issue.

Dianna

Robert Koons via Tercel: The cosmological argument, if successful, provides a powerful reply to this objection. The cosmological argument tells us that there is an uncaused first cause of the world. If the world bears the signs of intelligence, it is reasonable to attribute intelligence to the first cause.

Does this mean that if the world bears signs of evil, it is reasonable to attribute evil to the first cause as well?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Rimstalker,
As a theist...I don't think that first cause 'proves' the existence of God. However, I do think that it gives HUGE support for a omnipotent, omniscient sentience that exists outside our time-space...a sentience one could easily describe as having God-like qualities.

Is it pure coincidence that the Judeo-Christian concept of God outlines a sentience of omnipotence and omniscience existing outside of our time-space and who created our space time?

Probably not.

That's why I think the first cause argument gives much credence to the Judeo-Christian concept of God.


Most noteably the first cause argument places an atheist in a dubious 'head buried in sand' position:

Atheist:We cannot absolutely know that God was the first cause because this was outside our reference of time-space.
Theist: Sure...but there's a whole bunch of indication that it was God.
Atheist:Granted...but we cannot absolutely know that God was the first cause because this was our reference of time-space.
Theist: Whatever.


In short, God is a very probable explanation for the known fact of the first cause.


Why not believe the probable?


Thoughts and comments.


-SOMMS

Vibr8gKiwi

There's a great example of one particular type of theist broken-thinking that I see so often. Ed tries to apply relationships between members of a set to the set itself. Humans create other humans, have parent-child relationships, are personal and such. However the set of humans--mankind--is not anything like a human and can't logically be assumed to have the same properties and relationships applied to it as apply to its members.

A pez dispenser is fun, it has a head you can pull back and get some candy. However I claim those properties makes no sense when applied to set of all pez dispensers--such set is not fun, has no head, nor any candy (except again for each individual dispenser). That so many theists can't seem to understand the distinction between a set and its members is interesting.