Jobar

Here ya go, Jinto. I was just coming here to post it, in fact. Pay attention, pudgy, this is important-



Whoever created that has my undying gratitude.

Eudaimonist

Jobar

Kimpatsu

Fat Agricole is a typical theist in that he wants to anthropomorphise particles like photons. What next? Is your car alive because she refuses to start on cold mornings?

Felstorm

Its a common misconception that athesits think that something comes from nothing.

Only a theist would assume that the universe came from nothing, projecting their own cosmogeny upon something they know not very little about.

Defiant Heretic

Assuming that any effect must always be preceded by a cause, then everything in existence must fit into one of two categories. Either it is an effect, in which case there must be a corresponding cause, or it has always existed; it is infinite.

As we apply this reasoning to the universe as a whole, let us first assume that it fits into the first category; it is an effect. Now, if this is the case then there must be a cause. “God” is typically defined as this cause.

So now we must apply the reasoning to God. Either God is infinite, or is an effect in of itself. If we assume that it is an effect, then we must find a corresponding cause, and a cause for this cause, and so on, until we determine the original cause, which must be infinite.

However, as there is no evidence to suggest which of these causes is the original, infinite one, we must at one point simply make an arbitrary decision, or leave the matter unresolved.

Since the universe is the only cause for which we have direct evidence, it is most reasonable to assume that this is the original cause. We have no reason to postulate the existence of further ones.

Nowhere357

I agree with your conclusions. My question is about the if-then.

Assuming that any effect must always be preceded by a cause, why then are there only two categories? Can't we say stuff like: an effect can be it's own cause (and vice-versa), or even that the fact something exists, IS it's cause.

IOW haven't you stated a false dilemma - listing two options when there may be more?

Nowhere357

Harumi

What about the term ex nihilo? It's a philosophical term, I know, but:

Doesn't it say something about the universe coming from nothing?
I remember somewhere a physics theory about that, but since I'm a physics dunce...

Kimpatsu

Ex nihilo means creation out of nothing, but the universe didn't come from nothing. It came from a quantum singularity.

Defiant Heretic

I don't think so. By definition, a cause precedes its effect, and if the effect doesn't exist until it's been caused...

If the effect in question wasn't existence, you might have a point, but something can't cause itself before it even exists.