Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

[The Question]

he hasnt defined his argument

this site will debate anything. but he hasnt put foward his position.

Don't get yer panties in a wad. I misquoted because the UBB here is slightly different, and I transposed my pronouns. Saw-ree.

The attack was leveled at EvilGrey, not whozzit's above. I ain't no theist.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think someone needs formulate an Idiot Cause to explain EvilGrey. We can then debate that instead.

[Exonerate]

See the problem?

I'm not seeing it.

If people can't address his argument, they should just say so.

What argument? He basically tells us to discuss something without telling us what he means by it. He gives us a very general term without mentioning any of the specifics.

[The Question]

^^

Explanation is above - still gettin' used to yer UBB here.

[Wicked Pilot]

I've taken shits more productive than this thread. If EvilGrey continues to refuse to decide what side of the bed he's gonna piss on, then this thread needs to be closed and/or abandoned.

[AdmiralKanos]

Fine, since Evilgrey is obviously too much of an asshole to come out and state his position, and he obviously intends to cry victory and scream "strawman" when someone uses the classic First Cause argument because it's "not what he meant", I'll just ignore his feeble little bleatings and state that the classic First Cause argument is simply that everything must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, therefore something must have predated the universe, therefore God. I believe it was Aquinas who came up with this one (also known as "first mover" argument), although any history geeks can feel free to correct me if I remembered incorrectly.

It is a moronic argument on many levels:

• It assumes that the cause must be God
• It assumes that the cause must be a sentient agent and not a natural force
• It assumes that the cause of any event must be external to the participants in that event. This is nonsense, since countless examples can be provided of events which are not caused by an external agent (for example, a cloud of gas will gravitationally collapse into a planet or star without the need for any external agent to interfere with the process; the cause is the intrinsic nature of the agents involved in the event, not an external agent, sentient or not).
• It assumes that the universe exists in some external frame of reference with a distinct and independent timeline, so that it is possible for something to exist "before" the universe, when in fact the theory of relativity predicts that spacetime was enormously compressed and there was no flow of time before the Big Bang

And to top it off, even if we accept its flawed logic, then it still doesn't work because God must also have a cause. And simply defining God to not require a cause is a ridiculous cop-out; one could just as easily say that the universe does not require a cause.

Having said that, Evilgrey is still being a dipshit. He refuses to define his terms; if one makes a challenge, one is obligated to define that challenge. Moreover, "The Question" is being a smart-ass; he tries to make it seem as if one must have familiarity with the names of moronic religionist arguments in order to be a competent debater in this venue, which is untrue; there are many people in the world who are doubtless unaware of the "first mover" argument. This does not necessarily reflect negatively on their ability to discuss science vs religion in any way, as an intelligent person would undoubtedly see through its stupidity the moment it is described in sufficient detail.

[Sindai]

Agreed. Anyone with half a brain could see that people were insisting EvilGray post the FC argument for us so that he couldn't do exactly what he did: wiggle around and pretend we aren't addressing the "real" FC argument.

It's funny, if he's so confident that no atheist can poke holes in it without resorting to strawmen, you'd have thought he'd post the argument right away so he can show we can't defeat it. Gosh, I wonder why he didn't do that.

EDIT: Kanos posted (very thoroughly ) while I was typing.

[The Question]

Moreover, "The Question" is being a smart-ass; he tries to make it seem as if one must have familiarity with the names of moronic religionist arguments in order to be a competent debater in this venue, which is untrue...

Oh bullshit. First Cause is, metaphorically speaking, in the intro to the book of philosophy 101.

That's like saying a person who doesn't know what a catalytic converter is can still be a competent mechanic.

[Enforcer Talen]

wow. I have the weirdest feeling of deja vu.

Im fairly sure thats the third time Ive seen that post from wong directed at evil grey.

[AdmiralKanos]

Moreover, "The Question" is being a smart-ass; he tries to make it seem as if one must have familiarity with the names of moronic religionist arguments in order to be a competent debater in this venue, which is untrue...

Oh bullshit. First Cause is, metaphorically speaking, in the intro to the book of philosophy 101.

So? Who said someone had to take philosophy 101 to be able to discuss the question of whether God exists?

That's like saying a person who doesn't know what a catalytic converter is can still be a competent mechanic.

Actually, there are a great many competent mechanics out there who probably don't know what a "catalytic converter" is, for the simple reason that they don't speak English. This is analogous; you are assuming that an unfamiliarity with nomenclature must also mean unfamiliarity with operating concept.

[Andrew J.]

Didn't EvilGrey run away weeks ago?

Oh, and Mr. Question, we're discussing SCIENCE, not the collection of meaningless blather that is "philosophy."

[The Question]

So? Who said someone had to take philosophy 101 to be able to discuss the question of whether God exists?

They can discuss it all they want. It doesn't mean they can discuss it competently, which was the criteria. Don't go changing horses in mid-stream here.

Actually, there are a great many competent mechanics out there who probably don't know what a "catalytic converter" is, for the simple reason that they don't speak English.

There's a flawed analogy. In the western world of philosophy that argument is not known as anything but First Cause.

[The Question]

Didn't EvilGrey run away weeks ago?

Oh, and Mr. Question, we're discussing SCIENCE, not the collection of meaningless blather that is "philosphy."

My aren't you stupid. First Cause is a philosophical argument, and that is what is being discussed.

[Darth Wong]

They can discuss it all they want. It doesn't mean they can discuss it competently, which was the criteria. Don't go changing horses in mid-stream here.

Incorrect. Someone with a strong scientific background but no knowledge whatsoever of religious arguments would not know what it is, yet he would probably be able to shred it on sight.

There's a flawed analogy. In the western world of philosophy that argument is not known as anything but First Cause.

Wrong again. It is also known as the First Mover argument.

[Darth Wong]

My aren't you stupid. First Cause is a philosophical argument, and that is what is being discussed.

"First Cause" is a logical fallacy, and one need not be familiar with it in order to know that it is not logical or explain why not (once it's been defined, of course).

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

What the fuck is this "First Cause" argument? What first caused the universe?

[The Question]

Incorrect. Someone with a strong scientific background but no knowledge whatsoever of religious arguments would not know what it is, yet he would probably be able to shred it on sight.

Incorrect. A person may be a good natural athlete but he can't claim to be a great football player if he doesn't know the basic rules of the game.

[The Question]

"First Cause" is a logical fallacy, and one need not be familiar with it in order to know that it is not logical or explain why not (once it's been defined, of course).

Who's arguing that? The dipshit said the discussion was about science.

It is not.

[Wicked Pilot]

Incorrect. A person may be a good natural athlete but he can't claim to be a great football player if he doesn't know the basic rules of the game.

If he's 6 foot 3, weighs 300 lbs, can bench 500 lbs, can run the 40 in 4.4, and the mile in 6:30, then he's gonna make one damn fine linebacker once someone tells him to kill the guy with the ball.

[AdmiralKanos]

Incorrect. Someone with a strong scientific background but no knowledge whatsoever of religious arguments would not know what it is, yet he would probably be able to shred it on sight.

Incorrect. A person may be a good natural athlete but he can't claim to be a great football player if he doesn't know the basic rules of the game.

Ah, but to continue the analogy, not knowing about the name of a particular play does not necessarily mean you don't know the rules of the game or that you lack the ability to run that play once it's described for you.

[The Question]

Incorrect. A person may be a good natural athlete but he can't claim to be a great football player if he doesn't know the basic rules of the game.

If he's 6 foot 3, weighs 300 lbs, can bench 500 lbs, can run the 40 in 4.4, and the mile in 6:30, then he's gonna make one damn fine linebacker once someone tells him to kill the guy with the ball.

And at that point he becomes a great football player.

It's not a question of whether one can tear apart FC once described, it's whether one can be described as a great atheist debater if they don't even have familiarity with Day One arguments like FC.

[AdmiralKanos]

"First Cause" is a logical fallacy, and one need not be familiar with it in order to know that it is not logical or explain why not (once it's been defined, of course).

Who's arguing that? The dipshit said the discussion was about science.

It is not.

No, but it is not a pissing contest about familiarity with dumb philosophical arguments either. One can know the rules of logic without knowing the names of popular abuses thereof.

[AdmiralKanos]

It's not a question of whether one can tear apart FC once described, it's whether one can be described as a great atheist debater if they don't even have familiarity with Day One arguments like FC.

At what point did anyone say that this was about proving that one is a "great atheist debater" rather than debating points? Debates are about ideas, not trying to prove you're better than the other guy or that you're some kind of elite player. If you want dick-measuring contests, I'm sure there are lots of venues for that.

[The Question]

Incorrect. Someone with a strong scientific background but no knowledge whatsoever of religious arguments would not know what it is, yet he would probably be able to shred it on sight.

Incorrect. A person may be a good natural athlete but he can't claim to be a great football player if he doesn't know the basic rules of the game.

Ah, but to continue the analogy, not knowing about the name of a particular play does not necessarily mean you don't know the rules of the game or that you lack the ability to run that play once it's described for you.

And here's where we're starting to see eye-to-eye. In the interest of brevity see my response above to the guy with the Air Force looking avatar. (I don't know the players here yet and I'm too lazy to back button. )

[Andrew J.]

Who's arguing that? The dipshit said the discussion was about science.

It is not.

*sniff* I finally got somebody's attention! It's a flame, sure, but at least he's acknowledging me!