Smitty13

I "presuppose" a naturalistic universe because I consider that the default, and only logical, position, since there is no evidence that would indicate the universe contains anything that cannot be explained naturalistically.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Does a naturalistic universe accept a first cause? If so, we may have a dialogue to continue the process of defining the first cause. If not, then I'm not sure we have much mutual ground to even have a discussion.

Mageth

I don't think a naturalistic view requires one to assume a first cause, and I don't assume one. Some may argue for a deistic or other type of "first cause" that is consistent with a naturalistic universe.

First cause arguments tend to run into some serious problems. For example, if one assumes the xian god as a necessary first cause of the universe, then one is faced with the problem of "what was the first cause of god?" The answer is typically along the lines that god is defined as that which Always Was and requires no first cause. The answer: why assume this for god and not the naturalistic universe?

ManM

rainbow walking,
I see 9/11 as a tragic event that causes sorrow to both God and man. This is off topic, so perhaps this is not the proper place for such a discussion.

Philosoft,
I do not understand what you mean by setting up an opposition between 'make' and 'cause'. Those seem to be synonyms to me. What exactly forces that opposition? Also, you can break out of naturalism by assuming something greater than nature, God. The question then deals with the relationship between God and the world, not the existence of God. I personally believe that God transcends all categories of human thought, including the one I just put Him in. Therefore it is not the work of philosophy to place God in the order of things. I've found that when it tries it falls flat on its face.

Smitty13

However, if one is to naturistically argue no first cause, doesn't that mean the universe came into being out of nothing, by nothing and for nothing?

Secondly,
"The answer: why assume this for god and not the naturalistic universe?"
If we assume it for the naturalistic universe, it seems that is making the naturalistic universe an impersonal "god type being".

Mageth

However, if one is to naturistically argue no first cause, doesn't that mean the universe came into being out of nothing, by nothing and for nothing?

More along the lines that there is no "beginning" that one can pin on the universe that would require a First Cause.

And I agree with the "for nothing." The universe is not for anything.

If we assume it for the naturalistic universe, it seems that is making the naturalistic universe an impersonal "god type being".

Impersonal, yes. Not a being, not god-type.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mag,

Of course the main problem with this line of reasoning is that it is verifiably false. All that we know about the physical universe indicates that EVERYTHING within it and including itself has/had a cause. The one way Big Bang, the relentless progression of entropy, the never ending expansion, etc etc.

The problem with saying 'lets assume the physical universe doesn't need a cause' is it there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest this...AND there is verifiably evidence indicating it's falsehood.


To point: I think most atheist prefer your outline of the First Cause argument because it allows them this he said/she said approach to dealing with the argument. It gives the illusion that both parties can simply allow their creator to be uncaused. (However, this puts the athiest in a dubious position as he/she must then present convincing empirical evidence that this universe did not begin to exist.)

Few theists present the case so poorly. A much more accurate presentation of the reasoning goes...'Everything the began to exist requires a cause'. No one claims God began to exist.


SOMMS

Typhon

I would also point out that there is nothing inherent in a "first cause" that requires such a cause to be anything but a naturalistic event.

For example, in M-theory, it is speculated that the Big Bang may well have been caused by "random fluctuations" in our companion universe, precipitating the "Big splat" which triggered the explosive fireball that occurred some 15 or 16 billion years ago.

Again, there is no requirement that this event, or any other possible "first cause" event necessitate an aware or less than naturalistic trigger.

.T.

Bible Humper

Hello Smitty13

Yes! For the believer, who has presupposed God, "God exists" is the "default position". This is why many christians have trouble, at first, with understanding the fact that theism makes a positive assertion("God exists!") whereas atheism does not("No he doesn't!"). There is no theistic "evidence" that loses any "strength" if you replace "Yahweh" with any other supernatural entity such as elves.

If you have noticed and acknowledged this, you, sir, shall soon be an atheist.

Atheism has no presuppositions on it's own. Individual atheists, however, almost surely have presuppositions that could be found if you questioned them closely on politics, for example.

As for the question of God's existence, no. It is no more a presupposition for an atheist to not believe in Yahweh as the default as it for a christian to not believe in Odin as the default.

The christian, just like the atheist, would require extraordinary evidence for the claim that Odin exists. Atheists are those who demand the same from Yahweh, and rejected Yahweh for the same reasons that the christians reject Odin.

Only if "god type being" is just a poetic way of anthropomorphizing the mysterious and the awesome. This is a far cry from a supernatural deity with thoughts, wants, will, etc. who takes an active hand in the lives of his believers.

Mageth

Of course the main problem with this line of reasoning is that it is verifiably false. All that we know about the physical universe indicates that EVERYTHING within it and including itself has/had a cause. The one way Big Bang, the relentless progression of entropy, the never ending expansion, etc etc.

I'm curious, how does one verify that the physical universe has a first cause? I.e. that the universe came "out of nothing" and didn't arise from something natural (e.g. a vacuum fluctuation in another universe) that pre-existed our little universe?

The problem with saying 'lets assume the physical universe doesn't need a cause' is it there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest this...AND there is verifiably evidence indicating it's falsehood.

Again, what verifiable evidence?

To point: I think most atheist prefer your outline of the First Cause argument because it allows them this he said/she said approach to dealing with the argument. It gives the illusion that both parties can simply allow their creator to be uncaused. (However, this puts the athiest in a dubious position as he/she must then present convincing empirical evidence that this universe did not begin to exist.)

Perhaps whatever the universe "was" before the big bang (if that's how its present incarnation started) did not "begin to exist"...

Few theists present the case so poorly. A much more accurate presentation of the reasoning goes...'Everything the began to exist requires a cause'. No one claims God began to exist.

...and thus I can claim that the universe did not "begin to exist," and thus doesn't require a first cause.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mag,
There is much evidence for first cause. The Big Bang. The universal expansion rate. The fact that everything is running down (entropy) implies at one point it was 'wound up'. Ad infintum. These phenomenon are not indicative of a universe that has always existed.

This is just off-handed speculuation. What evidence can you give for this? Please show me an example of a thing in this physical universe that did not 'begin to exist'. If you can come up with one physical example I'd be inclined to consider your argument.


All the evidence suggests the opposite. That things in this universe that begin to exist were caused.


Again...what evidence do you have that the universe did not 'begin to exist'?

SOMMS