Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Defiant Heretic · 05-23-2003, 01:39 PM

Some time ago, I wrote this refutation of the argument from first cause. Ever since, I've used it as a response whenever someone uses this argument. I think that in the interest of intellectual integrity, I should be certain that my argument is sound.

If anyone can think if a problem with this argument, or a way to improve it, please post it here.

Quote:

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 posit the existence of further ones.

Jobar · 05-23-2003, 09:25 PM

In other words-

Defiant Heretic · 05-23-2003, 09:44 PM

Hmm...more like:

(Not to derail my own thread, but where did that image come from, anyway?)

But yes, the argument ends with Occam's Razor.

Lobstrosity · 05-24-2003, 01:38 AM

But wait, don't most theists assume that God is infinite, thereby bypassing basically your entire argument? You've shown via Occam's Razor that the only reasonable God to believe in must have always existed. Now it seems you must show that such an assumption is unreasonable in itself.

In my mind the best refutation of the first cause argument is to simply point out that not every effect needs a classical cause. First of all, if there was no time "before" the Big Bang, our notion of causation is meaningless pertaining to the initiation of the Big Bang expansion. If there was time before the Big Bang, there's no reason to assume it wasn't the result of some sort of uncaused quantum event. Lastly, if it was caused, there's absolutely no reason to attribute that cause to an intelligent creature. As I've pointed out before, this universe could have been blindly crapped out by a natural process in some uberverse. Perhaps prior to the Big Bang the universe existed as some sort of eternal chaotic microverse that after an infinite amount of time reached some state that would be considered "our universe," causing an ensuing Big Bang. Basically, the moral of the story is that the first cause argument implies nothing about a God and is a piss-poor argument that one must exist.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2003, 09:25 PM	#2
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	In other words-

05-23-2003, 09:44 PM	#3
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	Hmm...more like: (Not to derail my own thread, but where did that image come from, anyway?) But yes, the argument ends with Occam's Razor.

05-24-2003, 01:38 AM	#4
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	But wait, don't most theists assume that God is infinite, thereby bypassing basically your entire argument? You've shown via Occam's Razor that the only reasonable God to believe in must have always existed. Now it seems you must show that such an assumption is unreasonable in itself. In my mind the best refutation of the first cause argument is to simply point out that not every effect needs a classical cause. First of all, if there was no time "before" the Big Bang, our notion of causation is meaningless pertaining to the initiation of the Big Bang expansion. If there was time before the Big Bang, there's no reason to assume it wasn't the result of some sort of uncaused quantum event. Lastly, if it was caused, there's absolutely no reason to attribute that cause to an intelligent creature. As I've pointed out before, this universe could have been blindly crapped out by a natural process in some uberverse. Perhaps prior to the Big Bang the universe existed as some sort of eternal chaotic microverse that after an infinite amount of time reached some state that would be considered "our universe," causing an ensuing Big Bang. Basically, the moral of the story is that the first cause argument implies nothing about a God and is a piss-poor argument that one must exist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.