Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[ameyAtmA]

I wonder if "The Universe" can be treated as a meta-concept.
The set of all things that exist is not itself something that comes into existence.

Agreed. I call this the infinite potential of Brahman.

It can be empty or it can have things in it, but it can't itself be created or destroyed. You can talk about all of the things in it, but can you really say that it is a member of itself?

Bhagavad Geeta Chapter 9: Behold My mystic Yoga, O Arjuna, All beings are in ME, but I am not in them.

 

[Heyo]

1. Everything that exists had a beginning
2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
3. The Universe exists
4. Therefore the Universe had a beginning
5. Therefore the Universe had a cause
6. I call this cause, the creator of the Universe, God

Iirc that is a misrepresentation of the improved Kalam.

1. Not everything that exists had a beginning. That is the improvement of the argument. By stating that only what began to exist has to have a cause, the exception for eternal things (i.e. god) follows naturally.
4. This doesn't follow. That the universe had a beginning is a premise in the Kalam (based on observation).

The improved Kalam (or WLC version) is free from special pleading. IIrc it goes like this:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: The universe had a cause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One question.. If a god is supernatural, i.e. not of the natural, does it require a cause?

What are the laws that govern the supernatural?

If the answer is "we don't know," then the answer to your question is "we don't know."

 

[We Never Know]

What are the laws that govern the supernatural?

If the answer is "we don't know," then the answer to your question is "we don't know."

If I knew I wouldn't have asked the question.

 

[sun rise]

c) Linear time factor -- which is N/A because of the perpetually changing eternal nature of conscious existence.

I'm not 100% up to date on the experimental evidence, but there is experimental evidence that time is an emergent property so in this case physics and the Hindu (and other) views of time may coincide. The arguments about emergent time (and space) are very deep and subtle but I find the concepts interesting. Emergent Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for any who want to look at the depths.

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it

 

[rational experiences]

To exist means in the psyche always had existed.

Creation is said to have begun as a cause.

As existing was never caused it always was.

As the eternal form of being.

For a status to exist but own change then only a body portion of its state changed to not exist in its highest form.

Change was caused.

God O was the change.

So theism uses visionary mind conditions.

You can pretend eternal beings exist inside their eternal. No space. No burning. No time.

What could change to own a controlled change and not the whole state exist?

One lower state that was already being expressed.

Language.

Not the surrounds
Not the being.

An expressed evaluation.

So if you spoke an origin language owning to exist and then changed the language. So too did change exact itself

Hence it needed beings to cause change

O God was a held study model was the eternal explanation.. to seek where the language began.

O was held looking for the language.

So the surround that flowed was stopped

How it burst inside of the eternal that birthed new form in a womb.

How it was inferred taught to theists.

Hence the origin being still existed. Now it owned change.

It was explained to me as the following. If created creation consumed it's presence the eternal still owning the origin form could shut out space and continue itself owning a lost body.

 

[Tiberius]

One question.. If a god is supernatural, i.e. not of the natural, does it require a cause?

Maybe, maybe not.

But if we are to arbitrarily decide that supernatural things don't need causes, then we might as well just make up whatever we want.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm not 100% up to date on the experimental evidence, but there is experimental evidence that time is an emergent property so in this case physics and the Hindu (and other) views of time may coincide. The arguments about emergent time (and space) are very deep and subtle but I find the concepts interesting. Emergent Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for any who want to look at the depths.

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it

If theists claim entanglement exists before held mass had. Doesn't time shift quote I want held mass removed and I know how to make it no longer exist held?

Meaning no earth anymore.

 

[Tiberius]

Well. Thats not the first cause argument as is known to the philosophical world.

I did hear it in the context of a discussion board, so it could have been from someone who wasn't very familiar with it and got it wrong. It was a long time ago.

 

[firedragon]

I did hear it in the context of a discussion board, so it could have been from someone who wasn't very familiar with it and got it wrong. It was a long time ago.

No problem Tiberius.

 

[We Never Know]

Maybe, maybe not.

But if we are to arbitrarily decide that supernatural things don't need causes, then we might as well just make up whatever we want.

I find it interesting that the bible/the story of a god has thrived on e.i outlived/outlasted many civilization's.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The 3 problems that I foresee on this thread --

a) A Necessary Being instead of just Being i.e. existence . We drop the 'a' because 'a' can imply one among many instead of being the Only Truth viz. conscious existence.

b) Nature is not stand-alone, and is IT'S nature, and eternally present in the form of infinite potential -- this presence of infinite potential is uncaused.

c) Linear time factor -- which is N/A because of the perpetually changing eternal nature of conscious existence.

b and c sound dogmatic, rather than deduced. Axioms?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

• Everything that exists had a beginning

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause

• The Universe exists

• Therefore the Universe had a beginning

• Therefore the Universe had a cause

• I call this cause, the creator of the Universe, God

I remember the first-cause argument slightly differently, but things change over time, I’ve noticed.

Still, to me, it continues to have weaknesses:
Its use of the words “everything” and “exist” are limited to that of physical things, within the physical world known to Man. It assumes that there is no form of existence beyond that framework, that could be immaterial, eternal, etc.

With that in mind, the argument should rather read:

• Man knows all that exists (unlikely)
• All that exists is physical (unknowable)

1. All physical existence has a beginning (true)
   
   
2. All that has a beginning, has a cause (true)
   
   
3. The universe exists (true)
   The universe is physical (true)
   
   
4. The universe has a beginning (true)
   
   
5. The universe has a cause (true)
   
   
6. We may call it what we like, as long as we understand that the cause of the universe based on this argument, must physically exist and not be immaterial, eternal, etc; because if it is and it is said to exists, the argument itself is based on false premises.

 

[Link]

It is a sound argument, but it won't cause those without faith in God to believe nor increase the faith of those who already see God. It's kind of useless in that regard.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When I first heard of the First Cause argument, it said, "everything that exists needs a cause, and that cause is God." Now, this made no sense to me, as I immediately thought, "Well, doesn't God need a cause too if he exists?"

These days, that version of the argument has apparently fallen out of favour, due (I suspect) to that very objection. Instead, I see the following version:

1. Everything that exists had a beginning
2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
3. The Universe exists
4. Therefore the Universe had a beginning
5. Therefore the Universe had a cause
6. I call this cause, the creator of the Universe, God

This attempts to get around the obvious flaw in the previous version by saying that only things that have beginnings require causes, so God doesn't require a cause because he never had a beginning. He is ETERNAL (whatever that means).

It presents God as a "necessary being, " a being without whom nothing else would exist. It was originally proposed (at least in it's commonly known form) by Thomas Aquinas, who had four versions of this basic argument.

1. First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.
2. Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.
3. Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.
4. Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God. (SOURCE)

There have been different attempts to refute this argument. At best, some say, it proves just a creator of some vague description, without any connection to Christianity (or any other known religion). The argument could also be made that it contradicts itself by saying that everything needs a cause, then breaks this rule by making an exception for God. it also assumes that everything actually needed to have a cause. (SOURCE)

So, does this argument really hold up? Is it a valid argument for God (or a creator/deity/etc)?

Not for me, it doesn't. As you pointed out, the flaw with the first argument is in the wording, "everything that exists has a cause -- therefore if God exists, God needs a cause."

All other arguments are attempts to get around that, and in every case, it comes down to special pleading. The most obvious version of such special pleading is to make God a "necessary being." But that's just a made-up notion, designed especially for the purpose of getting around the problem. And if that is not special pleading, I don't know what is.

In reality, I think it might be just the case that existence itself is "necessary" by its very nature. In other words, that nothing is impossible (to be read as it is impossible for nothing to exist -- or possibly as "nature abhors a vacuum" kind of thing).

 

[Link]

The whole point of the argument is to show a Creator existing. If the same conditions (needs a cause) apply to the Creator, obviously it won't prove him.

Note to Theists: see how Atheists lack common sense in analyzing arguments, don't be phased by them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

therefore if God exists, God needs a cause..

G-d is not a physical being.
He is therefore not part of the space-time continuum.
i.e. His creation

All other arguments are attempts to get around that, and in every case, it comes down to special pleading.

Call it special pleading, but G-d is still not part of the universe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

G-d is not a physical being.
He is therefore not part of the space-time continuum.
i.e. His creation

None of the arguments were specific to physical beings or mentioned the space-time continuum.

Sounds like you're saying that the premises of the arguments are false.

Call it special pleading, but G-d is still not part of the universe.

How do you define "the universe" in the context of these arguments?

I take it to mean something like "the set of all things that exist." How do you take it?

 

[Audie]

When I first heard of the First Cause argument, it said, "everything that exists needs a cause, and that cause is God." Now, this made no sense to me, as I immediately thought, "Well, doesn't God need a cause too if he exists?"

These days, that version of the argument has apparently fallen out of favour, due (I suspect) to that very objection. Instead, I see the following version:

1. Everything that exists had a beginning
2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
3. The Universe exists
4. Therefore the Universe had a beginning
5. Therefore the Universe had a cause
6. I call this cause, the creator of the Universe, God

This attempts to get around the obvious flaw in the previous version by saying that only things that have beginnings require causes, so God doesn't require a cause because he never had a beginning. He is ETERNAL (whatever that means).

It presents God as a "necessary being, " a being without whom nothing else would exist. It was originally proposed (at least in it's commonly known form) by Thomas Aquinas, who had four versions of this basic argument.

1. First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.
2. Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.
3. Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.
4. Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God. (SOURCE)

There have been different attempts to refute this argument. At best, some say, it proves just a creator of some vague description, without any connection to Christianity (or any other known religion). The argument could also be made that it contradicts itself by saying that everything needs a cause, then breaks this rule by making an exception for God. it also assumes that everything actually needed to have a cause. (SOURCE)

So, does this argument really hold up? Is it a valid argument for God (or a creator/deity/etc)?

"Attempts' to refute?.

 

[Audie]

G-d is not a physical being.
He is therefore not part of the space-time continuum.
i.e. His creation


Call it special pleading, but G-d is still not part of the universe.

How do you know G- is not physical.
Or that there even is one.