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).
-
In total there are 20 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 19 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 880 on Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:45 am
First Cause
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
First Cause
This thread is for the discussion of the first cause.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: First 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).
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.
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.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: First Cause
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.
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.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2200 times
- Been thanked: 2201 times
Re: First Cause
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
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
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2200 times
- Been thanked: 2201 times
Re: First Cause
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.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.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- Vishnu
-
Intern
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:28 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 91 times
Re: First Cause
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.
![Image](http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/129/c/3/stewie_is_god_by_gephoria-d3g05wo.png)
![Image](http://www.serien-load.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/FamilyGuy_RoadToMultiverse_1253886728.jpg)
![Image](https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5192807424/hA3F35AA4/)
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.
![Image](http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/129/c/3/stewie_is_god_by_gephoria-d3g05wo.png)
![Image](http://www.serien-load.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/FamilyGuy_RoadToMultiverse_1253886728.jpg)
Last edited by Vishnu on Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2200 times
- Been thanked: 2201 times
Re: First Cause
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.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.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: First Cause
Input = 0.Ant:
this is really shallow analysis of this argument.
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.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?