BookTalk.org

This thread is for the discussion of the first cause.

Bionov:

I’m still looking for the best place for the argument about the first cause.

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"
1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

This is a circular argument which defeats itself.

God is the first cause, there is an efficient cause for everything.

Argument dead. Inconsistent within it's own reasoning.

this is really shallow analysis of this argument.
not to mention simplistic.
it also exposes a total ignorance of theological considerations that add flesh to the argument of Causation

But a materialist is not capable of anything else but superficialities that much is clear.

I'm moving my response from the previous thread . . .

You must not have liked my earlier response to this, bionov. Bottom line, this hardly explains anything. It's a logical syllogism that leaps to the conclusion (in Step 5) that God is the First Cause. But it doesn't define "God" and it also conveniently excludes God from Step 1, thus skirting the question, who created God?

Goddidit is not a very satisfying answer is it, especially when "God" is a nebulous term that can mean a lot of things.

Why should we assume that time has a beginning?

Is Aquinas' syllogism (based on Aristotle's four causes) convincing to you?

By the way, Aristotle also proposed there are five basic elements in the universe: earth, water, air, fire, and aether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle# ... our_Causes

ant wrote:this is really shallow analysis of this argument.
not to mention simplistic.
it also exposes a total ignorance of theological considerations that add flesh to the argument of Causation

But a materialist is not capable of anything else but superficialities that much is clear.

Theological considerations? Do you mean let's start from the premise that God started everything and go from there. That's exactly what this first cause argument does.

It is circular reasoning, but I think that's part of the point. While speculative, if it views "time' as more of a loop or circle, then there's not really a problem, I suppose. What I do see as a problem here is the glaring nonsequitur of the last part of #5- "(and this is God)." Why would that have to be the inference? Or is this just another one of those semantic things akin to "There has to be an X in this gap here, we don't know exactly what X is, so let's just give it the label God"?

Besides, we all know the real first cause of the universe was when Stewie Griffin's time machine malfunctioned, casting him outside of the space/time continuum, forcing him to overload the device and make it explode to create a rift in the space/time barrier and propel back him into his timeline. That exploding rift, as it turns out, was the big bang.

bionov wrote:Okay geo, let’s go with Aristotle’s fifth element, “Aether”, which is defined as the divine substance that makes up the heavenly spheres and bodies. So instead of using the word God, I'll substitute the word used by AA members and say, “Higher Power”. Of course we all know the famous quote from Star Trek; “may the Force be with you’. So what ever you call it, there had to be a “first cause”.
Let me finish by saying that I am a scientist and believe that everything around me couldn’t have happened by chance. This is what has strengthened my faith in a Creator.

Thanks, bionov. That's precisely why this argument is not logical—it assumes the existence of God. Like others are saying, it's a circular argument.

Ant:
this is really shallow analysis of this argument.

Input = 0.

Yes, yes.

Again Ant is spotted reminiscing how shallow the materialist is. How incapable of understanding, and emotion. If only Ant would deign to alight upon the earth and reveal the magnificent understanding he holds just above our grasping fingers. But no. It is not for mortals to understand what Ant has understood.


Now, why is it a jump to slap god on the end of this argument?
to illustrate:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is Athura Mazda).

What made me put Athura Mazda there? What leads me to that choice, and not another? What makes my choice valid, or invalid? It doesn't follow from anything. Why is Athura Mazda a better choice than Spaghetti Monster?

If we just leave off the part in parenthesis then the argument is still dead in the water.

"nothing can be the efficient cause of itself" and "a first cause exists" are inconsistent with eachother.

And besides, if what we are attempting to do is explain the universe and all of it's complexity, introducing god into the argument does nothing to simplify matters. It just adds in something which is presumed to be infinitely MORE complex and on top of that, by definition, inexplicable. This just shoves us irrevokably beyond the edge of understanding and into the realm of ignorant acceptance of authority.

"I am who am"
- God

"I yam what I yam!"
-Popeye the Sailorman