First Cause

[geo]

That Hornsby song is great by the way.

[ant]

Geo wrote:

But it doesn't define "God" and it also conveniently excludes God from Step 1, thus skirting the question, who created God?

Just how familiar are you with Causation arguments?


How familiar are you with notions of God?

You sound as if your familiarity with philosophical and theological considerations of causality and god are based entirely on popular science writers of today.

[ant]

Ultimately, "it is what it is" is the only logical answer!
Any educated person knows that.
Right?

I thought it was "I am that I am"? Which is a very succinct answer to the question of first cause.


Or are you making fun of someone who answers "I don't know."? How dare they pretend to be less than omniscient.

Oh stop flaunting your biblical familiarity like some knowledge slut.
It's not impressing anyone but you.

[Interbane]

How familiar are you with notions of God?

The only notion that's relevant here is one of the many definitions of god that says "He who is uncaused," or "he who is the prime mover."

Voila! Problem solved.

Those definitions are nonsensical, if you have a firm understanding of the conceptual definition of causation. It's an excellent example of the spooky-wording employed by theological authors to entice followers.

The only way this line of argumentation makes any sense is if you first believe the authors have authority. You have to first believe they've received divine inspiration. But what supports your belief other than the words themselves? That is logical circularity. Because the notions expressed above are premises. They aren't conclusions or observations. They are assumptions.

Resting your defense on "notions of god" commits a logical fallacy. If you take the "notions" at face value, then the fallacy is petitio principii(begging the question). If you take the "notions" based on the words of their theological authors, then you commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy(argument from authority).


It's ridiculous to say that Geo's understanding is limited because he's not familiar with the fallacious theological claptrap that you're referring to.

Oh stop flaunting your biblical familiarity like some knowledge slut.
It's not impressing anyone but you.

Don't be so indignant. Your post was that ridiculous. "It is what it is". You really had a point in showing the shallow answers of atheists.

[ant]

Resting your defense on "notions of god" commits a logical fallacy. If you take the "notions" at face value, then the fallacy is petitio principii(begging the question). If you take the "notions" based on the words of their theological authors, then you commit the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy(argument from authority).

And if you take scientific methodology as the Authority (cap "A") as it relates to Truth (cap "T") you commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

How old are you?
Why do you get off on one-upmanship?
You know you really are nothing more than silly, right?

[Interbane]

And if you take scientific methodology as the Authority (cap "A") as it relates to Truth (cap "T") you commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

You may be right about that, but I didn’t check. How is it relevant? What does scientific methodology have to do with my philosophizing? The logical errors I pointed out have nothing to do with scientific methodology. Let alone whether or not anyone here makes assumptions that include capital letters...

How old are you?
Why do you get off on one-upmanship?
You know you really are nothing more than silly, right?

One-upmanship? You refer to demonstrably false theology in an attempt to make geo look uneducated. Admit guilt yourself before accusing others of the same crime. You claim you're not a science denier, yet you repeat all the same sound-bites. Science denial is a large threat to the future of our country. I'll one-up you every time if it's related to that topic. I do have an agenda, and I'm not afraid to say it.

[geo]

Geo wrote:

But it doesn't define "God" and it also conveniently excludes God from Step 1, thus skirting the question, who created God?

Just how familiar are you with Causation arguments?


How familiar are you with notions of God?

You sound as if your familiarity with philosophical and theological considerations of causality and god are based entirely on popular science writers of today.

This is rich. Actually, this thread is a great demonstration of your lack of intellectual honesty. Someone else posted the First Cause argument and many of us posted a response based on the argument itself. Your tactic, as always, is to criticize others without making an argument of your own. You do beat around the bush, casting disparaging remarks whenever possible, but never quite getting around to your own point. You seem content to serve in the role of noisemaker and troll.

Indeed, here's your first response on this thread:

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.

Since you ask, I will tell you that I have seen this argument before and found it to be utterly lacking. I did reacquaint myself with it, even looking up Aquinas in the indices of some of my philosophy books. And then I took the time to write up a short post, saying what I think of it.

So where's your argument, fellow Jack? How is Aquinas' first cause argument valid? How is it convincing? Either put up or shut up.

Actually after that first post of yours, I'm surprised you're even still hanging around here. You're making a damned fool out of yourself.

I think I'm going to start calling you Jack (as in Never done Jack) or Dick (as in don't say dick):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPBt4IuQEbw

[johnson1010]

anting.

[geo]

It seems to me there's always a risk in borrowing a logical argument that was formulated in the 13th century and was itself based on Aristotle's concept of the "unmoved mover." It does make sense on an instinctive level that something or someone must have started it all. We instinctively believe there was a beginning. However, as science has shown the universe doesn't really work on an intuitive level. The more we learn about the universe the more strange and unintuitive it seems.

I believe Aquinas' syllogism was posted here as a kind of proof of God, but I'm not sure this was even Aquinas' intention. I believe Aquinas was actually using this as a way to define "God." (Still looking into this.) It's not easy to figure out what Aquinas was all about given that he lived in a very different age. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about Aquinas, but I can still argue that this particular syllogism falls apart under scrutiny. And it has been picked apart by better minds than mine. Although I'm all ears if someone wants to take it on.

I wonder if one of the theists here would explain why they would think that God can be proven logically in the first place. Doesn't God exist outside of the natural realm? Isn't that why you need faith? On the other hand, it makes sense to try to bring in a cherished belief into the fold of science and logic, given how much we have come to rely on these to discern what's real in the world. But you can't have it both ways, can you?

[bionov]

A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2.A causal loop cannot exist.
3.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4.Therefore, a First Cause must exist.

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was created by Al-Ghazali and then strongly supported by William Lane Craig):
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The Universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.