Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[Sheldon]

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

Who has ever claimed that straw man anyway? I sense a false dichotomy fallacy is being primed here.

Either my belief is true or a straw man fallacy is true. Classic.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Or rationally, making unevidenced assumptions in an argument, about the very thing you're arguing for, is called a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

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

We? I've never seen any deity, nor any objective evidence that anyone else has either.

 

[Link]

Or rationally, making unevidenced assumptions in an argument, about the very thing you're arguing for, is called a begging the question fallacy.

Love is based on such a fallacy. We assume compassion is good, we appreciate affection, before we are intellectual or find reasons for it intellectually.

 

[Sheldon]

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

No true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Love is based on such a fallacy. We assume compassion is good, we appreciate affection, before we are intellectual or find reasons for it intellectually.

Love is not a rational argument for anything. There's also ample evidence that love describes a variety of emotions and actions. Good is a subjective term, so I'd need more.

 

[Link]

Love is not a rational argument for anything.

It's the most rational argument for living.

 

[Sheldon]

It's the most rational argument for living.

No, you're claiming it is. That is not how rational arguments are constructed.

 

[Link]

No, you're claiming it is. That is not how rational arguments are constructed.

There is somethings that are self-evident. For example a straight line you can know has to pass between start and end at a point and that it's the shortest path between the two points.

You know it before any need of math proofs, it's intuitive and you see that to be true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Just making things up is no source of knowledge..

Obviously..

 

[muhammad_isa]

And I argue that since you admit and concede God is imaginary..

Funny though, isn't it?
That so many people can imagine God's existence to be true, whilst others object so vehemently?

Of course, it doesn't prove that God exists, just that humans are gulible or ignorant .. is that right?

 

[ameyAtmA]

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

Thanks for the link to the article. Yes, Hindu scriptures have alluded to quantum mechanics all along, but I was not alluding to quantum mechanics here.

I was just saying that the eternality and perpetual nature of change itself, the fact that change and transformation is a constant, that we cannot pin-point , A happened before B. Who knows, a while earlier, B may have caused A?

So the simpler model of time being cyclic rather than linear, and a suggestion or proposal that this change itself is beginning-less. The bang was not the first. So the cause behind this is not a timely cause but an eternal foundation of conscious existence.

Again, this is just a supplementary food for thought for people on the thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Just to go back to this: do you think that the First Cause argument is valid when "universe" is defined this way?

I mean, if "universe" is defined to only include that which we observe, then there's an unknown amount of "unobserved" stuff out there that isn't God; how could you ever exclude the possibility that the explanation for the observed universe isn't out there among that stuff? How do you justify the leap that the cause must be God?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I mean, if "universe" is defined to only include that which we observe, then there's an unknown amount of "unobserved" stuff out there that isn't God; how could you ever exclude the possibility that the explanation for the observed universe isn't out there among that stuff? How do you justify the leap that the cause must be God?

Well, what other possible cause could there be?
It makes no sense that highly advanced aliens created the universe .. not to me.

The point is, that the argument is put forward in the light of scriptural knowledge we already possess. It is not a proof, but an acknowledgement that it is part of the jig-saw of why/how we exist, imo.

 

[Sheldon]

It's the most rational argument for living.

There is somethings that are self-evident. For example a straight line you can know has to pass between start and end at a point and that it's the shortest path between the two points.

You know it before any need of math proofs, it's intuitive and you see that to be true.

So now it's intuitive, and not "the most rational argument etc"?

Your example is testable and falsifiable, so a very poor example for you to use here. Love is a descriptor for a range of human emotions, it is not a rational argument, as your inelegant leap into vague unevidenced assumptions about intuition are demonstrating.

 

[Link]

So now it's intuitive, and not "the most rational argument etc"?

Your example is testable and falsifiable, so a very poor example for you to use here. Love is a descriptor for a range of human emotions, it is not a rational argument, as your inelegant leap into vague unevidenced assumptions about intuition are demonstrating.

It's both. I'm saying arguments are not necessary to see God and probably won't increase anyone's faith except what helps you see God better like the our value exists in God's vision, has made me certain more.

This is because I can't even look at myself without seeing God because God sees me is part of my existence and I exist in his sight (who I am).

 

[Sheldon]

9-10ths_Penguin said: ↑
I mean, if "universe" is defined to only include that which we observe, then there's an unknown amount of "unobserved" stuff out there that isn't God; how could you ever exclude the possibility that the explanation for the observed universe isn't out there among that stuff? How do you justify the leap that the cause must be God?

Well, what other possible cause could there be?

Oh no, an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, dear oh dear.

It makes no sense that highly advanced aliens created the universe .. not to me.

Argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

The point is, that the argument is put forward in the light of scriptural knowledge we already possess.

What scriptural knowledge, I'm dubious as if there were such knowledge the argument would be pretty redundant.

It is not a proof, but an acknowledgement that it is part of the jig-saw of why/how we exist, imo.

It's a demonstrably irrational argument, as it contains several known logical fallacies, but as we see from your post here, you seem to fine with making irrational claims.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, what other possible cause could there be?

I don't know; that's your problem to sort out.

How would you go about proving that there's nothing in the unobserved part of the universe that might explain the existence of the observed part? I have no idea, but it's the burden you set for yourself.

It makes no sense that highly advanced aliens created the universe .. not to me.

And God makes no sense to me. The only reason I'm here willing to entertain arguments for God is that I'm willing to set aside gut feelings about what "makes sense" and look at things rationally with a bit of rigor.

If you want us to go back to our gut feelings, then we're done; my position will be that God does not exist.

The point is, that the argument is put forward in the light of scriptural knowledge we already possess. It is not a proof, but an acknowledgement that it is part of the jig-saw of why/how we exist, imo.

So you agree that the argument from first cause fails as a standalone argument for God... right?

 

[PureX]

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.

I agree that the confusion and failures of the argument are mostly due to a misuse or poor use of language.

I would maybe state it more like this:

1. The universe is comprised of all that physically exists. (Both that we know of and what we don't)

2. The universe is an ongoing event, taking place, not a static object.

3. That event was initiated somehow, by something other than itself.

4. That something, then, must exist beyond and apart from the physical universe.

5. Existence must therefor be comprised of more than just it's physicality.

 

[Audie]

Obviously..

So...why do you do it?