Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[muhammad_isa]

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?

I take it to mean "that which is part of our observed physical reality".

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

If G-d was part of His creation, it would make no sense.
How can a thing that does not exist create itself?

I don't personally believe that this universe has no reason for existing other than "fluke".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I take it to mean "that which is part of our observed physical reality".

You think that "the universe" only includes what we can observe? Really?

That's funny. I thought that @PureX caricature of an empiricist in this thread was made-up nonsense. I never thought I'd actually meet someone like he described. It's even weirder that this person is a theist.

 

[Link]

"Attempts' to refute?.

He's being a gentlemen for conversation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If G-d was part of His creation, it would make no sense.
How can a thing that does not exist create itself?

I don't personally believe that this universe has no reason for existing other than "fluke".

If you disagree with the reasoning of the arguments presented, you're more than welcome to make up your own argument for God that addresses the shortcomings in these ones.

 

[F1fan]

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.

It's a good adjustment, and acknowledgment that the original argument was flawed. But my first thought is why does the eternal stuff have to be a god (that isn't known to exist) and not just energy, which IS known to exist?

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.

I still think this is flawed because it doesn't clarify if the material of the universe began to exist (how?) versus the current state of the universe had a beginning (post Big Bang) where the material already existed.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Then how do you distinguish God from the imaginary?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then how do you distinguish God from the imaginary?

Well, G-d is imaginary, as in I can imagine it.
Naturally, I have many reasons why I believe in G-d.

 

[Sheldon]

• 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

The first problem is that the first and second premises can only be evidenced within the temporal physical universe, to apply this prior to the existence of space time is simply an unevidenced assumption.

The second problem is that 4th and 5th premises makes that very assumption, whilst we know that the universe as we now observe it had a point of origin, explained and evidenced by the big bang, to assume it needed the same kind of cause we see in the temporal physical universe is nothing more than assumption. We can't apply the conditions of the physical universe prior to the big bang other than in an arbitrary way.

Premise 6 is pure assumption for a cause, and worse still it makes the unevidenced assumption a deity has always existed which is a special pleading fallacy, and a begging the question fallacy. If a deity can always have existed why can't a universe in some other form have always existed?

You could substitute anything you want in there for a deity, and simply assume it had the same attributes and the argument loses nothing, that in itself is problematic. I don't find first cause arguments at all compelling, as they must make assumptions and justify an innate contradiction, that everything must have a beginning / cause, then reverse this for the very thing the argument is for. if you make unevidenced assumptions in an argument, for the thing you're arguing for, that's called a begging the question fallacy.

It's a flawed argument, and leaves one in the same position as before, where claims for a deity go completely unevidenced.

 

[Audie]

If G-d was part of His creation, it would make no sense.
How can a thing that does not exist create itself?

I don't personally believe that this universe has no reason for existing other than "fluke".

Nothing about god makes sense.

Deciding on the properties of god when nothing is known, incl whether it exists goes beyond
Illogical.
God could be physical and he made more physical
stuff. A form of physical not conceited of?
Nobody has any info on that. Including you

Just making things up is no source of knowledge.

That includes your " just happened " which is also just made up. Barely even a stawman.
It has no resemblance to physics.

 

[Heyo]

It's a good adjustment, and acknowledgment that the original argument was flawed. But my first thought is why does the eternal stuff have to be a god (that isn't known to exist) and not just energy, which IS known to exist?

Have you noticed that in this version god isn't even mentioned?

I still think this is flawed because it doesn't clarify if the material of the universe began to exist (how?) versus the current state of the universe had a beginning (post Big Bang) where the material already existed.

That is attacking the premises, i.e. the soundness of the argument.
@Tiberius asked about the validity.

I agree that even in this form the argument is either not sound or not clearly stated. I'm not sure it could be said to be valid if it is unclear.

 

[Sheldon]

An uncreated creator can only exist as an exception to the principle of causality.

But if we agree to exceptions to the principle of causality, we do not need to assume an uncreated creator in the first place!

Precisely correct, and it contains obvious special pleading and begging the question fallacies.

 

[Link]

The first problem is that the first and second premises can only be evidenced within the temporal physical universe, to apply this prior to the existence of space time is simply an unevidenced assumption.

The second problem is that 4th and 5th premises makes that very assumption, whilst we know that the universe as we now observe it had a point of origin, explained and evidenced by the big bang, to assume it needed the same kind of cause we see in the temporal physical universe is nothing more than assumption. We can't apply the conditions of the physical universe prior to the big bang other than in an arbitrary way.

Premise 6 is pure assumption for a cause, and worse still it makes the unevidenced assumption a deity has always existed which is a special pleading fallacy, and a begging the question fallacy. If a deity can always have existed why can't a universe in some other form have always existed?

You could substitute anything you want in there for a deity, and simply assume it had the same attributes and the argument loses nothing, that in itself is problematic. I don't find first cause arguments at all compelling, as they must make assumptions and justify an innate contradiction, that everything must have a beginning / cause, then reverse this for the very thing the argument is for. if you make unevidenced assumptions in an argument, for the thing you're arguing for, that's called a begging the question fallacy.

It's a flawed argument, and leaves one in the same position as before, where claims for a deity go completely unevidenced.

The best versions of the argument take account potential infinite chain of events or effects and don't assume universe can't be eternal. The ones addressed in University teaching these arguments talk about that version and try to refute that version (since Atheism seems to be the truth per western Academia).

If you can show you understand those versions and refutations, then I can discuss counter arguments to their refutations.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Right, because religious claims always have to assume their God exists in order for the dogma to be "true".

Objectively we can't use assumptions.

 

[Link]

Right, because religious claims always have to assume their God exists in order for the dogma to be "true".

Objectively we can't use assumptions.

Love is circular, so kind of true. If we didn't see God from birth to end, it would disprove him. So it can't be just on argument we believe in God. Arguments can make us verify the fact if we want intellectual reasoning, but they aren't necessary.

In my view, people who believe in God and his Messengers will do so because they love honor and light.

Those who believe in God but separate him from his Messengers do so because they don't love honor but see it as human construct and want sexual deviance in society or they want to feel connected to the magical world of spirits and so trust the spirits over God's Messengers.

Those who believe in God but follow other then truth, they want to feel good about themselves and aren't willing to see themselves as astray.

Those who follow the truth will have to see themselves as evil, astray, and in dire danger of losing their souls for a phase of their lives, which is scary, hard and not easy. This is literally about killing yourself spiritually, and you become someone completely new. Killing yourself spiritually is not easy, and this is the true sacrifice Ismail did and Abraham slit him by a spiritual sword of God and light.

Those who attribute God what they don't know, they use God for their worldly benefits.

Those who just enjoin truth, they only know truth and don't believe in falsehood.

If we are going to get society to follow truth, some dark knights who will be notorious for forbidding the evil and commanding the good, will be needed.

 

[F1fan]

Well, G-d is imaginary, as in I can imagine it.
Naturally, I have many reasons why I believe in G-d.

This is why we can't use God as a premise.

And I argue that since you admit and concede God is imaginary, and is conjured in your mind, and you are showing this idea with humility and passion, that it is essentially self-worship.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Claiming a deity is supernatural carries the same burden of proof as claiming a deity exists, in any argument for a deity, any unevidenced assumptions about it are a begging the question fallacy.

 

[F1fan]

Love is circular, so kind of true. If we didn't see God from birth to end, it would disprove him.

That is why theists offer so many arguments as an attempt to prove their God exists, or force it into existence argumentatively. There is no reason to disprove that which hasn't been proved. We do invalidate many claims and arguments.

So it can't be just on argument we believe in God. Arguments can make us verify the fact if we want intellectual reasoning, but they aren't necessary.

there aren't any arguments that inform us a God exists. There is no fact about Gods existing.

In my view, people who believe in God and his Messengers will do so because they love honor and light.

It is a religious, thus self-serving view. It has no interest in sorting out the true from false objectively.

Those who believe in God but separate him from his Messengers do so because they don't love honor but see it as human construct and want sexual deviance in society or they want to feel connected to the magical world of spirits and so trust the spirits over God's Messengers.

Those who believe in God but follow other then truth, they want to feel good about themselves and aren't willing to see themselves as astray.

Those who follow the truth will have to see themselves as evil, astray, and in dire danger of losing their souls for a phase of their lives, which is scary, hard and not easy.

Those who attribute God what they don't know, they use God for their worldly benefits.

Those who just enjoin truth, they only know truth and don't believe in falsehood.

If we are going to get society to follow truth, some dark knights who will be notorious for forbidding the evil and commanding the good, will be needed.

These statements are simply religious dogma, and not descriptions of what is objectively true.

 

[Sheldon]

G-d is not a physical being.

Argument from assertion fallacy, and probably a begging the question fallacy is this unevidenced assumption is used in an argument for a deity.

He is therefore not part of the space-time continuum.
i.e. His creation

He? Therefore? The begging the question fallacies seem to be piling up here.

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

[/QUOTE]

It's a begging the question fallacy, as is always the case when one makes unevidenced assumptions about the thing one is arguing for in any argument.

 

[Link]

That is why theists offer so many arguments as an attempt to prove their God exists, or force it into existence argumentatively.

Some do, most don't. It took me a while, but it seems those who don't are wiser about it.