Media-1

One of the oldest proofs for the existence of God goes something like this:

1. Something can't come from nothing. A first cause is required which is uncaused. (God)

2. Something exists.

3. Therefore, God exists.

To me, this argument seems convincing, yet I know many of you will reject it. Any comments?

Media-1

phlebas

Hi Media-1,

My comment is that you peruse the Library to read up on the objections to <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html" target="_blank">the cosmological argument</a>, also known as the "first cause" argument.

It is a very old argument. And it's probably very convincing to those who already believe. It doesn't have a lot of pull for the skeptic, though.

For example, why is it easy to believe in an uncaused God, but not in an uncaused universe?

But check that link out, and come back with your comments.

Welcome to the board!

Eudaimonist

3. Therefore, the something we know about (the Universe) always existed in some form.

Why not this?

Or how about:

3. Therefore, Force X exists. Force X is an impersonal, unintelligent, uncaused force that creates spacetime.

If by God you mean the Christian God, how about:

3. Therefore, Brahman (or other Creator deity) exists.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>

Dr. Retard

Here are the biggest problems:

1. Your first premise says that there cannot be something that comes from nothing, but also that there is an uncaused first cause. This seems contradictory -- to be uncaused is to come from nothing. Perhaps you will say that this apparent tension disappears when you disambiguate the terms: to come from nothing is to be preceded by a state of complete nothingness, whereas to be uncaused is simply to lack a causal predecessor. But then why should we think lacking a cause is any more possible than coming from nothing? Both seem really weird.

2. Your first premise neglects the possibility of an infinite chain of causation. In such a scenario, there would be no uncaused first cause, and without violating your ex nihilo nihil fit principle. It's a consistent possibility that needs to be addressed.

3. Finally, there is a big difference between an uncaused first cause and God. For instance, some people believe that the the singularity starting the Big Bang is an uncaused first cause. But a singularity isn't a morally perfect person, much less a sovereign sustainer of the universe interested in human life. Even a very successful proof of a first cause will not get you anything close to God.

Tani

this itself doesn't make sense, first cause would either be something, or it would be nothing by the first half of the statement. however, the second half of the statement is trying to establish a hidden third alternative, which is neither something nor nothing, while enforcing a strict dichotomy in the first half of the statement. since simply 2=3 is a contradcition, there's nothing further can be made understandable with that first statement.

copernicus

It is also interesting that the "First Cause" argument implies that the Big Bang is the "Second Cause". However, as long as we are speculating, why not have multiple "causes" before the Big Bang? It is not logically necessary that one, and only one, First Cause existed. This is a question that simply cannot be answered, except by guessing. Why is it necessary to make up an answer?

Detached9

Is the universe or God really the "first cause"? What about existence? Would existence be the "first cause"? Existence must be presupposed in order for the universe to exist, right?

Maybe this would be better wording (and more formal): In order for something to be a cause, it must first exist. Therefore, existence is the first cause.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Media-1

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eudaimonia:
[QB]


3. Therefore, Force X exists. Force X is an impersonal, unintelligent, uncaused force that creates spacetime.

This possibility suffers from the same evidental problems as most of theism, only worse. It is even more of a stretch to imagine a god who creates with intelligence and purpose for no reason at all.

Media-1

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr. Retard:
[QB]Here are the biggest problems:

1. Your first premise says that there cannot be something that comes from nothing, but also that there is an uncaused first cause. This seems contradictory -- to be uncaused is to come from nothing.

No. I'm saying that an uncaused cause of everything didn't and couldn't have come from nothing. The uncaused cause would have to have always existed.



2. Your first premise neglects the possibility of an infinite chain of causation. In such a scenario, there would be no uncaused first cause, and without violating your ex nihilo nihil fit principle. It's a consistent possibility that needs to be addressed.

But this explanation explains nothing. It just indefinitly suspends ignorance. As such, it doesn't really add anything useful to our knowledge about the cause of everything.

3. Finally, there is a big difference between an uncaused first cause and God. For instance, some people believe that the the singularity starting the Big Bang is an uncaused first cause. But a singularity isn't a morally perfect person, much less a sovereign sustainer of the universe interested in human life. Even a very successful proof of a first cause will not get you anything close to God.

The singularity may have always existed, but what (or who) caused it to explode into the the big bang? And why?

Media-1

Media-1

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tani:
[QB]

"this itself doesn't make sense, first cause would either be something, or it would be nothing by the first half of the statement."

The first cause (God) is, at least in a a non-physical way, something.

Media-1