Jan Michael

Seriously, I'm losing my patience with the new wave of First Causers. They seem to be under the impression that it's illogical to reserve judgement on what may have "caused" the BB. It's either an uncaused "god" or you're wrong.

There is also a complete dismissal of the contracting/expanding "Steady State" idea that had been more, or less, discredited until recent Hubble photos revealed mature (appearing) galaxies where they ought to be forming not existing in full form

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm." target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm.</a>

But since there is no real knowledge of what fired the BB, or "caused" it or whatever the hell people want to call it, you've got people like this~

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm</a>

Claiming that a god is the only logical "Causer".

A site that I frequent~

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm</a>

~Has a couple of guys that will not let this rest. They regurgitate this stuff non-stop.

HELP! I need some heavy philosophical/Logical bombs to drop. This is not my field and I'm not about to start playing those word games.

So PLEASE provide some good ideas to creativily counter this asinine First Cause revival.

Thanks,

Michael

Bill Snedden

The link you provided has a variation of the first cause argument that depends upon a feature of the Kalam argument to support it (the impossibility of infinite regress).

A common objection to this type of argument is to posit the universe as timeless and eternal. In other words, the "something that has always existed" from Mr. Lenardos' argument. Mr. Lenardos raises the Kalam objection against this argument, however, he seems to overlook that if this objection disproves an infinite, timeless universe, it also disproves an infinite, timeless god.

He explicitly mentions a similar objection to his argument, but his rebuttal is flawed in that it assumes that an eternally existing universe must exist within time (hence the impossibility of infinite regress), but that an eternally existing god need not. This is petitio principii, or the fallacy of "begging the question."

Current cosmology holds that time and space came into being at the Big Bang. Therefore, there can have been no events "before" the BB and thus whatever was logically prior to the BB cannot have existed in time and must therefore have been timeless.

Therefore, following his "decision tree" examples, both the far left "Substance of the universe is infinite" and the far right "There is something transcendent..." remain possibilites (at least, as far as his evidence and argument have demonstrated).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Jan Michael

Great reply!

I'm almost sorry that you had to wade through that sort of philosophical mumbo-jumbo

May I paraphrase your take on Lenardo's somewhat flawed article?

Or better yet, what if I were to post your reply as a reply on the Wasteland board?

Would you mind?

I'll await a response before posting this elsewhere.

Thanks Again,

Michael

Bill Snedden

Actually, I thought his article was pretty good. A very nice attempt to put what is sometimes a confusing argument into simple, easy language. Unfortunately the argument is flawed. His defense of it is therefore susceptible to this flaw.

Essentially, I would say that any version of the "first cause" argument suffers from this flaw: without assuming that the "cause" must be transcendent to the "effect", proponents cannot "prove" that the universe needs an external cause. Unfortunately, this same assumption neatly vitiates the concept of the "uncaused cause" or, more commonly, "god".

You may paraphrase or quote as you prefer. The objection is not original.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Jan Michael

Oh I know it's a pretty decent article. But it does have the flaws that you brought up. It always looked like some sort of carefully worded special pleading to me but I really don't have the lingo down yet to say that in a way that the language wranglers/manipulators do.

I was just getting tired of the smug attitudes of those who claim that to be the end all answer to the debate.

Either way I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

Cheers for now,

Michael

Indifference

PLEASE NOTE: I am not a well versed philosopher and as such may not make sense.


I'm not sure, but I think the weak points (and also the points he/she(?) spent the least time on) were the infinite regression of causes and also the timeless period before the first motion. He was too quick to dismiss them and didn't back hemself up well.

(and obviously, the wild leap to a conclusion of God was rediculous).

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

LinuxPup

You're under the assumption that the First Cause argument is false, and then when you can't answer it, you need "bombs" from other people? What if, I know this sounds crazy, the First Cause argument is true?

You then said:

Exactly... whatever caused the universe must be timeless. This is a point for theism. I have yet to see many able to refute the First Cause argument, and I think it's a pretty good one.

Jan Michael

It's still an assumption that a god was a "cause" when we don't know this as fact.

And this~

"You're under the assumption that the First Cause argument is false, and then when you can't answer it, you need "bombs" from other people? What if, I know this sounds crazy, the First Cause argument is true?"

~ Is another assumption. And it's mistaken.
My position is that this is an unknowable, untestable (at least as of now) and irrefutable claim made by those who have already given up on the 6,500 year old Universe and the Created (5 minute reality anyone? Disprove it? You can't "answer it". So it must be true?) Universe, thereby I am withholding any judgements on its validity. It's not important to my reality.

On the other hand First Causers are making the absolute claim, which is an arrogant assumption, and calling it logically irrational to believe anything else. That is patently incorrect.

That's what I wanted "bombs" for, the dogmatic "logical" arrogance

"What if, I know this sounds crazy, the First Cause argument is true?"

Oh, if it's correct? How would it be "true"? Which god did it? Who gets to claim victory?

That god still has little place or influence on this Existence. So I doubt I'd go grab a rosary or start tithing the following Monday.

Your point?

Thanks,

Michael

Bill Snedden

Ummm...no, it certainly is not.

While the BB represents the beginning of Time and Space, they do not necessarily constitute all that is (the universe). Further, as the BB represents the beginning of time, it cannot have had a cause, at least in the temporal or physical sense; there was no "before" the BB.

However, because the BB does represent a "beginning", there must have been something logically prior; something timeless & eternal. However, this in itself does not necessitate the existence of a personal deity. Naturalism is not defeated by the BB, nor does it provide adequate reason to declare the various "first cause" arguments sound.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Ron Singh

Is there any validity to any naturalism sans a universe?