Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[muhammad_isa]

Where do you see the word "Abrahamic" in the OP? I don't. The Kalam can be used for any creator, divine or not, Abrahamic or other..

OK .. I suppose you are right that "a man called God" from another universe created this one.
..and that "God", might not be eternal..
..but who created that "God"?

I think we are just talking semantics here..

eg. How do you know that God is Eternal ?
..bla bla, as if you had never heard of it before

 

[Audie]

I'm not alone

If G-d created the universe, it follows that He is not part of His creation.
It is self-evident.

" if"

 

[Audie]

How can G-d create Himself?
It makes no logical sense.

i.e. G-d created men [as in generic mankind], and He is a man

Ah, your "logic" knows the limits of limitless power.

 

[Heyo]

OK .. I suppose you are right that "a man called God" from another universe created this one.
..and that "God", might not be eternal..
..but who created that "God"?

I think we are just talking semantics here..

Nope. Just logic. But you have to understand logic first before you can talk semantics.
Now, logic is hard for most people and it seems useless when you can prove so little but it is the only way to reach valid conclusions from known premises.

eg. How do you know that God is Eternal ?
..bla bla, as if you had never heard of it before

I have heard every possible description of "god" and its opposite. And none were logical.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not alone

If G-d created the universe, it follows that He is not part of His creation.
It is self-evident.

Of course -- but that still leaves open the questions: Is there a God? And did He create the universe?

 

[1213]

What about the spontaneous production of particle/anti particle pairs? Sure, they almost instantly annihilate each other and so cancel out, but if one of those particles is destroyed (say the pair forms at the event horizon of a black hole and one of them falls in but the other doesn't), then the non-destroyed particle will not be annihilated and thus it will have appeared to have come from nothing.

I don't think people can observe anything appearing from nothing, because people can't have, or make any true space without nothing. Some things may appear to come from nothing, if one does not see where it comes, but as long as we are on this planet observing things, everything comes from somewhere and can't be shown to appear from nothing, because it happens in this space we see.

 

[Suave]

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)?

Please allow me to posit God as being a posthuman technologically super advanced civilization living in base reality from where they have programmed simulated beings and simulated universes by some sort of powerful computer. Technologically advanced computers programmed by a posthuman technologically super advanced civilization might be performing an ancestral simulation whereby the actions of the posthuman technologically super advanced civilization ancestors' brain neurons are being realistically simulated along with the brain's sensory input having enough accuracy to convince each simulated character that he/she is real.

Indications we might be living in a simulated reality:

1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.

2. This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding might be indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality. Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.

The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code
Vladimir I. shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov

• V. I. Shcherbak, M. Makukov
• Published 27 March 2013
• Physics, Biology
• Icarus

3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.

Our simulated universe has a beginning, namely the controller of simulations ( a.k.a. God), if we are living in an ancestral simulation, then we are the simulated ancestors of the simulator ( a.k.a. God ) If we are the simulated ancestors of the simulator ( a.k.a. God), then life evolves in base reality, perhaps God might have evolved with artificial super intelligence.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?"

According to Baha'i beliefs, God has always existed and God has never been without a Creation, which means that Creation has always existed. That does not mean that the earth has always existed and it does not mean that humans have always existed because I believe in evolution and that humans evolved over time.

Baha’u’llah clarified what was revealed by the Prophets of old, which had been misapprehended.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.

As to those sayings, attributed to the Prophets of old, such as, “In the beginning was God; there was no creature to know Him,” and “The Lord was alone; with no one to adore Him,” the meaning of these and similar sayings is clear and evident, and should at no time be misapprehended. To this same truth bear witness these words which He hath revealed: “God was alone; there was none else besides Him. He will always remain what He hath ever been.” Every discerning eye will readily perceive that the Lord is now manifest, yet there is none to recognize His glory. By this is meant that the habitation wherein the Divine Being dwelleth is far above the reach and ken of any one besides Him. Whatsoever in the contingent world can either be expressed or apprehended, can never transgress the limits which, by its inherent nature, have been imposed upon it. God, alone, transcendeth such limitations. He, verily, is from everlasting. No peer or partner has been, or can ever be, joined with Him. No name can be compared with His Name. No pen can portray His nature, neither can any tongue depict His glory. He will, for ever, remain immeasurably exalted above any one except Himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 150-151

 

[Sheldon]

9-10ths_Penguin said: ↑
It's not valid.

It certainly seems to be. Perhaps you need to review the difference between validity and soundness in logic.

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

From your link:

"In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion."

Ispo facto, it is not valid, since known logical fallacies have been pointed out in the premises, and therefore violate a basic principle of logic - nothing can be asserted as rational is it contains a known logical fallacy.

"contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time"

In an argument for a deity, to make an unevidenced assumption the universe had a beginning, and an unevidenced a deity did not, are both begging the question fallacies.

You cannot assume in the same argument that everything requires a cause, and then contradict this assertion by assuming that a deity does not, as this is a known logical fallacy - a begging the question fallacy.

As presented it is not valid...QED...

 

[Sheldon]

Evangelicalhumanist said: ↑
..you seem to have some special, inside information..

I'm not alone .

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, again. You can't make a bare appeal to numbers in this way and expect it to be viewed as anything but irrational. Though of course you can not care?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, again..

No it isn't.
What you quoted is not part of the argument

 

[Sheldon]

According to Baha'i beliefs, God has always existed and God has never been without a Creation, which means that Creation has always existed.

No, it means only that this is what some people choose to believe. You can believe the moon is made of cheese, it does not follow that the moon IS made of cheese.

 

[Sheldon]

you seem to have some special, inside information.

I'm not alone

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, again.

No it isn't.
What you quoted is not part of the argument

It was a claim you made, in the exact context you made it, which was why I posted the previous post that you quoted. If you dishonestly quoted that part of a previous post out of context that is sophistry on your part, not mine.

You made a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy, again.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it means only that this is what some people choose to believe. You can believe the moon is made of cheese, it does not follow that the moon IS made of cheese.

That is why I said "According to Baha'i beliefs, God has always existed and God has never been without a Creation, which means that Creation has always existed."

In other words, Creation has always existed According to Baha'i beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think people can observe anything appearing from nothing, because people can't have,

Who has ever claimed otherwise?

or make any true space without nothing.

I can only assume you meant with nothing? Else the double negative makes even less sense, and again this is a straw man.

Some things may appear to come from nothing, if one does not see where it comes,

Not really, this is just another of your endless straw men.

as long as we are on this planet observing things, everything comes from somewhere

Now do take your time with this one, were "we" on this planet, when the big bang occurred? In fact was this planet extant, was our solar system? dear oh dear...

and can't be shown to appear from nothing,

Nor can it be "shown" from any deity.

because it happens in this space we see.

Which did not exist when the big bang occurred, so it is a particularly idiotic claim.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it means only that this is what some people choose to believe.

That is why I said "According to Baha'i beliefs,

which means that Creation has always existed.

No it doesn't, it means you believe this, and you can also believe the moon is made of cheese, this does not mean the moon is made of cheese.

Which was my point.

 

[Audie]

I don't think people can observe anything appearing from nothing, because people can't have, or make any true space without nothing. Some things may appear to come from nothing, if one does not see where it comes, but as long as we are on this planet observing things, everything comes from somewhere and can't be shown to appear from nothing, because it happens in this space we see.

Weve heard that.
Isnt it time for about one new tune.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm not alone

If G-d created the universe, it follows that He is not part of His creation.
It is self-evident.

O held mass by zero womb mother of any God in space pressure.

Highest first law natural law only.

Reasoned. First human natural being discussed laws.

First law for life continuance is only natural law. Not science law.....evil.

O God holding said men of science highest law.

O God created released out of O body o.volcanic mass hole evil blasting of seal∆ gases.

Stated O story only.
O earth as God changed. GD owing o.blast released the heavens.

Humans live inside those heavens. God is at my side he said first.

Heavens holy water oxygen spirit.

The equal female human life the same. God is at my side.

Reason heavens cooled from o.volcanic spirit release. Now moved as holy GOD.

A teaching only.

Basic teaching as natural is basic.

Science was man made. We don't need to argue mathematics as it is a conjured calculus only.

God the spirit with me around me through me supporting me.

Holy water ox. Christ term oxygens regeneration. Gods own.

The same for two equal bodied humans.

That story not told correctly as man was only talking for himself as a confession I conjured man's life attack.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it doesn't, it means you believe this, and you can also believe the moon is made of cheese, this does not mean the moon is made of cheese.

Which was my point.

According to Baha'i beliefs means I believe that Creation has always existed.

I said:
"According to Baha'i beliefs, God has always existed and God has never been without a Creation, which means that Creation has always existed."

 

[rational experiences]

First law said by a natural human scientist or not a scientist is natural law.

Not reactive law.

Creation by natural law has always existed is human correct.