First Cause

[Interbane]

The problem with both arguments is that there are assumptions that are made that are pulled from thin air. We can't even say whether they are likely or unlikely. They are simply unknowable assumptions.

We are every bit as justified in making opposite assumptions:

1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2.A causal loop may possibly exist.
3.A causal chain must be of infinite length.
4.Therefore, a First Cause cannot exist.

or

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.We do not know if there was a beginning to the universe(or if it's existence is infinite).
3.Therefore, no conclusion is possible.


The only reasonable answer here is that we don't know.

[ant]

There is a monstrous disservice being committed here in relation to arguments of causality. It’s nearly criminal.

I see talk here of people dusting off their old philosophy books, false premises, fallacies, infinite regressions, inconsistent reasoning, assumptions of existence, and other random refutations. The commonality in all this is that if you fill your mouth with enough buckshot, you’ll somehow down the beast in front of you. The beast that wont go away.

Pascal said of people:

“There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy.”

It’s utterly useless to begin constructive argument before there is a coming to terms.
The atheists contributing to this empty discussion have nothing of substance to contribute because they do not wish to seek Him in an honest and open minded manner. They believe He is non existent. This “discussion” is the epitome of tomfoolery. There is not an ounce of honestly to be found here.

It is a queer thing to hear/read talk of appeals to authority and how such pleas hold no water.
And yet the militant atheist set on discrediting rational demonstrations related to the question of God reflexively appeal to science when discussions of creation by intelligent means are broached. It is the Oracle of Science that is referenced when the atheist attempts to use evolution as a battering ram against the theist.

Abstract mathematical demonstrations developed to support scientific hypothesis are seen by the atheist as valid starting points. The dishonest and ignorant atheist refuses to grant the same privileges to philosophers who utilize similar tokens of abstraction. For the atheist their pass is financed by the intangibility of “confidence” - science will get it right because science has been successful based on rewards we can see. Religion and its espousing of faith is utterly meaningless because faith can not produce empirical rewards that can be experienced by a materialist.

Scientism adherents do not understand that natural and human sciences of themselves actually do not need to raise questions of ultimate origins. Philosophers, however, must. And yet, lacking this understanding they move to engage in poor philosophizing. They become nickel and dime philosophers, attempting to outline sophisticated philosophical arguments. Let’s all dust off our old philosophy books and discredited the Summa Theologica in its entirety, gang!

Atheists can not come to terms when discussing “essence” “genus” “existence” “Being” “God” “causality” “2nd causation” etc, in the context of serious philosophical discussions on the existence/non existence of God.

Someone please tell the atheist that no science can prove everything, for every proof presupposes some principle or starting point, or an assumption as its data. Additionally, science itself is aware of the inherent conflict within its practice, always present in the background, always serving as a reminder that conclusive findings are not in fact conclusive because, “If P, then Q. Q, therefore, P” is utterly fallacious in its logic and reasoning.

Man can rationalize the existence of a Creator to a precarious degree.
Man can affirm his understanding of Nature to a precarious degree.
These are the only two intellectually honest positions to hold on both matters.


Just saying, that's all.

[ant]

1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2.A causal loop may possibly exist.
3.A causal chain must be of infinite length.
4.Therefore, a First Cause cannot exist.

What kind of tortured logic is this??!

You are attempting to interchange a finite and contingent being with First Cause?
And you aren't even honestly open to First Cause, are you? It shows.

Are you drunk?

[Interbane]

What kind of tortured logic is this??!

You are attempting to interchange a finite and contingent being with First Cause?
And you aren't even honestly open to First Cause, are you? It shows.

What are you talking about? Expand on your point.

There is a monstrous disservice being committed here in relation to arguments of causality. It’s nearly criminal.

I see talk here of people dusting off their old philosophy books, false premises, fallacies, infinite regressions, inconsistent reasoning, assumptions of existence, and other random refutations. The commonality in all this is that if you fill your mouth with enough buckshot, you’ll somehow down the beast in front of you. The beast that wont go away.

Pascal said of people:

“There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy.”

It’s utterly useless to begin constructive argument before there is a coming to terms.
The atheists contributing to this empty discussion have nothing of substance to contribute because they do not wish to seek Him in an honest and open minded manner. They believe He is non existent. This “discussion” is the epitome of tomfoolery. There is not an ounce of honestly to be found here.

It is a queer thing to hear/read talk of appeals to authority and how such pleas hold no water.
And yet the militant atheist set on discrediting rational demonstrations related to the question of God reflexively appeal to science when discussions of creation by intelligent means are broached. It is the Oracle of Science that is referenced when the atheist attempts to use evolution as a battering ram against the theist.

Abstract mathematical demonstrations developed to support scientific hypothesis are seen by the atheist as valid starting points. The dishonest and ignorant atheist refuses to grant the same privileges to philosophers who utilize similar tokens of abstraction. For the atheist their pass is financed by the intangibility of “confidence” - science will get it right because science has been successful based on rewards we can see. Religion and its espousing of faith is utterly meaningless because faith can not produce empirical rewards that can be experienced by a materialist.

Scientism adherents do not understand that natural and human sciences of themselves actually do not need to raise questions of ultimate origins. Philosophers, however, must. And yet, lacking this understanding they move to engage in poor philosophizing. They become nickel and dime philosophers, attempting to outline sophisticated philosophical arguments. Let’s all dust off our old philosophy books and discredited the Summa Theologica in its entirety, gang!

Atheists can not come to terms when discussing “essence” “genus” “existence” “Being” “God” “causality” “2nd causation” etc, in the context of serious philosophical discussions on the existence/non existence of God.

Someone please tell the atheist that no science can prove everything, for every proof presupposes some principle or starting point, or an assumption as its data. Additionally, science itself is aware of the inherent conflict within its practice, always present in the background, always serving as a reminder that conclusive findings are not in fact conclusive because, “If P, then Q. Q, therefore, P” is utterly fallacious in its logic and reasoning.

Man can rationalize the existence of a Creator to a precarious degree.
Man can affirm his understanding of Nature to a precarious degree.
These are the only two intellectually honest positions to hold on both matters.


Just saying, that's all.

I didn't see anything in that entire post that dealt with the supposed issues you're seeing. What, in particular, is wrong within our philosophizing? Point out the errors. I think the truth is, you disagree emotionally but can't back it up intellectually.

[johnson1010]

There is a monstrous disservice being committed here in relation to arguments of causality. It’s nearly criminal.

What exactly do you take issue with?

Pascal said of people:

“There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy.”

An appeal to authority. And an inapplicable statement in any case as it assumes there is a god. That there is a particular god that Pascal is aware of. That people who do not know Pascal’s god are foolish and unhappy.
All of which require evidence in support before anything of the statement should be considered when in fact there is copious evidence to contradict every point.

It’s utterly useless to begin constructive argument before there is a coming to terms.
The atheists contributing to this empty discussion have nothing of substance to contribute because they do not wish to seek Him in an honest and open minded manner.

You assume at the outset, without reason or evidence in support, that there is a Him to seek. That it would be a worthwhile effort to seek Him if he DID exist, and that only trying to come to terms with His existence is a “constructive argument” and can contribute to a “full discussion”.

You’ve made several claims that our understanding is shallow, yet the only thing I can see that you want from us is to assume at the outset that there is a god. It would be better to seek the truth than to attempt, at all costs, to confirm you’re a-priori bias.

They believe He is non existent. This “discussion” is the epitome of tomfoolery. There is not an ounce of honestly to be found here.

The only honest thing to do is to admit those things you do not know and to have good reason to believe the things you believe. You do not know there is a god. All the same you dismiss the possibility of his absence out of hand. This is dishonest. On the other hand, all accounts I’ve ever heard have all proven to have blatantly non-supernatural explanations which all at least allow for those account to be explained by natural causes. Natural causes which I can confirm are possible, vs the supernatural causes people WISH were responsible and have never been reliably documented. Ever.

It is a queer thing to hear/read talk of appeals to authority and how such pleas hold no water. And yet the militant atheist set on discrediting rational demonstrations related to the question of God reflexively appeal to science when discussions of creation by intelligent means are broached. It is the Oracle of Science that is referenced when the atheist attempts to use evolution as a battering ram against the theist.

It is evident that you do not understand what an appeal to authority is. For instance, you used an appeal to authority with your quote from Pascal. The scientific method is the opposite of an appeal to authority, and that is by design.


Science is not a magical oracle which dispenses knowledge acquired through supernatural, mystical, mysterious means. Science shows EXACTLY where it’s claims come from, delineates EXACTLY how you could also confirm those results, under what circumstances those results hold, and under what circumstances those results do NOT hold. And science dismisses “because I said so” arguments out of hand because no person’s authority has any place in determining the veracity of any claim. It is the evidence provided by the interrogation of nature which is the arbiter of truth.

So why does a claim from science carry more authority than Pascal? Because a fully vetted scientific claim has been demonstrated to be true!

Corrected:

Abstract mathematical demonstrations developed to support scientific hypothesis are seen by the those who understand the mathematics as valid starting points.

I don’t believe in the theory of relativity because of the abstract mathematical demonstrations. I don’t have a great enough command of mathematics to work out the problems and confirm for myself that what they are telling me is correct. I can however take note that the use of this theory has allowed us to make coherent explanations of a wide variety of phenomena that would otherwise be a mystery. And note that using the mathematics of relativity are what allow for the GPS system to keep track of us with any accuracy.

The dishonest and ignorant atheist

Ant demonstrates his command of maturity, which he has criticized others on this site for lacking. This is also known as “anting”.

refuses to grant the same privileges to philosophers who utilize similar tokens of abstraction.

Wrong. The abstract mathematical underpinnings of physics are self-consistent, which the first cause argument is not. The math is predictive. The math has real world ramifications which can and have been confirmed to an astounding level, with such granularity of accuracy it is mind boggling.

Should I extend my confidence in math to Pascal’s rather thin nose turning at atheists which you quoted?

For the atheist their pass is financed by the intangibility of “confidence” - science will get it right because science has been successful based on rewards we can see. Religion and its espousing of faith is utterly meaningless because faith can not produce empirical rewards that can be experienced by a materialist.

How inane is this? You criticize us for having confidence in the method which has delivered the modern world. Enabled the support of billions of humans, made even the poorest of us live up to three times our recorded life span before medicine, allows trans continental travel, near instantaneous communications, records and delivers education on a world-wide scale, eliminates disease, cures deafness(!!!), replaces bones and organs, enables us to live in arid or frigid lands, has brought us to the ocean floor and the surface of other planets… need more? There are billions of pages (made possible by science) which continue to pile up enumerating the VAST accomplishments of the scientific method. Basically, everything that distinguishes modern man from an ape gathering what they could find unprotected under the boiling sun.


Yes. I have confidence in science.


On what would you think I should rest my confidence in god? The claims from religious leaders about the world which have been demonstrated to be certainly wrong in almost every conceivable way? Or the un-testable, unbelievable claims about the afterlife from the very same people who were proven wrong about everything else they said they knew?

Atheists can not come to terms when discussing “essence” “genus” “existence” “Being” “God” “causality” “2nd causation” etc, in the context of serious philosophical discussions on the existence/non existence of God.

Because, according to your post, we haven’t started off assuming god is real, and the job of philosophy is to make room for him?

Someone please tell the atheist that no science can prove everything, for every proof presupposes some principle or starting point, or an assumption as its data. Additionally, science itself is aware of the inherent conflict within its practice, always present in the background, always serving as a reminder that conclusive findings are not in fact conclusive because, “If P, then Q. Q, therefore, P” is utterly fallacious in its logic and reasoning.

It is no surprise to me that science cannot prove everything. In fact, as I have been at pains to point out dozens of times in discussions with you, science never proves anything true. It can only prove things wrong. Our best theories are not “The Truth!” but instead have not been proven wrong. So I do not have faith that what we know is all there is to know, nor that we understand what we understand perfectly. Instead I have confidence that our understanding is accurate to the degree it has demonstrated to be so, which always leaves open the door for further understanding and considerable room for improvement.

Man can rationalize the existence of a Creator to a precarious degree.
Man can affirm his understanding of Nature to a precarious degree.
These are the only two intellectually honest positions to hold on both matters.

The two are not equivalent. In every instance we test our understanding of nature against nature and we demonstrate that we are wrong, or provisionally correct (within very specific error margins). No such corrective measures constrain the wild guesses of theology, or more often, the provincial assertions of truth disguised as logic as seen in the first cause argument we are discussing. The two could not be more different.

Science is designed not to rely on the faulty methods of theology and faith. That is what it’s for! And the success of that frame of mind is colossal, and unprecedented.

So your input here has been… what exactly?

I think I missed it between you calling us as dishonest idiots.

[johnson1010]

Bionov:
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.

Interbane is right about what you are choosing to assume and what not.
Each of these must be supported for the conclusion to have any merit.


The design of this one is explicitly to make a “god exception”, but the conclusion does not point to a god.

Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

Birth from mothers all the way back to the beginning of sexual re-production, then asexual reproduction such as budding all the way back to horizontal gene transfer in early single celled organisms, then trace back to the change from simple proto-cells which are nothing but complex chemistry.


This argument doesn’t lead to god, it leads to evolution, then abiogenesis, chemistry, stellar nuclear synthesis, and the big bang. Although we cannot say for certain whether the big bang was the first cause, or simply A first cause.

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.


1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The Universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

This does not require a god either. Whatever the big bang was, whether the output (or inner expansion) of a black hole, the result of a “Big Crunch”, the collision of Mbranes, or the inevitable consequence of quantum fluctuations there are a number of possible explanations which could result in a big bang, and none of them require supernatural intervention.

[bionov]

Everything except God has a cause other than itself.

But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman? David Hume wondered the same thing:
“But if we stop, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? ... By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be God; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy.”

Note: David Hume was the most important philosopher ever to write in English.

[Interbane]

But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman?

I'd say my position is slightly different. I'm willing to admit the possibility of uncaused things. That does not mean they exist. If we are to say that "we admit the universe is uncaused", that does not mean the universe is uncaused. It merely means we believe it's uncaused. Actual knowledge here is beyond our grasp. We only have assumptions. Typically, our assumptions follow our beliefs. Funny how that works.

[youkrst]

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him.

define God

there are more groups!

those who have an idea of "God" and think that particular idea or conception is FACT when indeed it is only their (or someone else's) idea of god.

those who think it is ok to do really harmful and atrocious actions on their fellow humans because they fail to conform to the idea as fact.

those who get shirty condescending and indignant when others reject their idea of God as fact and insist it is a poor idea at best.

those who won't even define their idea for fear that it will get blown out of the water.

etc etc

[geo]

We can surmise that there was a Big Bang, but we cannot conceptualize what existed before. Both time and space and all matter only came into existence with the Big Bang. So if there has to be a First Cause, it was the Big Bang. Saying something called "God" caused the Big Bang only adds an unnecessary layer of complexity for which there is no evidence.

As Hume said, apportion belief to the evidence.