Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

[SirNitram]

^^^

Gee, and what you think of me is so important to my self-image.

Do you have anything of importance to say here?

[The Question]

^^^

[SirNitram]

^^^

Well, that answers my question nicely. Tell me, is going to a board just to act stupidly somehow revered in your subculture, or do you do it out of some desperate need to compensate for your own failures?

[aerius]

^^^

It's because you touch yourself at night.

[Frank Hipper]

Who here thinks EvilGrey is a sockpuppet of the esteemed Storm Rucker's?
He plays his characters well, as any hollow actor would, but the similarities in background seem telling.

[The Question]

^^^

Well, that answers my question nicely. Tell me, is going to a board just to act stupidly somehow revered in your subculture, or do you do it out of some desperate need to compensate for your own failures?

Does it twist your panties if I do?

And are you really as ignorant of cosmology to think that time is not a function of this universe?

There was no "before" the Big Bang anymore than there is "north" of the North Pole.

[The Question]

^^^

It's because you touch yourself at night.

And?

[The Question]

Who here thinks EvilGrey is a sockpuppet of the esteemed Storm Rucker's?

I do! I do!

[Kuroneko]

First Cause? That asinine 'Everything must have a cause' fallacy. Of course, Christians twist it so they don't have to answer it: God, himself, must have a Cause. Again, most mutlideity myths include a fix for this, but Christianity doesn't.

Actually, while the problems with the "First Cause" argument are quite numerous, that's not really one of them. Well, at least not the strongest version (which is still pretty weak), which only claims "every event has a cause" rather than the blanket "everything has a cause." There is no problem on those grounds, then, since there is no requirement that all causes be events. (God would not be an event.)

Incidentally, First Cause includes the silliness that Time is somehow finite. Every theory revolving around how the Big Bang went off involves the fact there were Universe(s) before it.

No, not really. Most versions don't have any time before the Big Bang, because they contend there was no time before the Big Bang (here, "before" is meant metaphysically and not temporally, as the latter wouldn't make any sense in this context).

[SirNitram]

^^^

Well, that answers my question nicely. Tell me, is going to a board just to act stupidly somehow revered in your subculture, or do you do it out of some desperate need to compensate for your own failures?

Does it twist your panties if I do?

Amuses me, actually. I was running out of social rejects to poke fun at.

And are you really as ignorant of cosmology to think that time is not a function of this universe?

There was no "before" the Big Bang anymore than there is "north" of the North Pole.

Quite a few disagree. Oscilating Universes theory, the new one about the interaction of two existing universes creating a new one.. Fact is, many 'causes' are being considered, which is forcing many to look at 'time' in strange ways.

Of course, I don't expect logical discussion of such to come from someone whose admitted he's just here to be an ass.

[The Question]

No, not really. Most versions don't have any time before the Big Bang, because they contend there was no time before the Big Bang (here, "before" is meant metaphysically and not temporally, as the latter wouldn't make any sense in this context).

Exactamundo.

[SirNitram]

First Cause? That asinine 'Everything must have a cause' fallacy. Of course, Christians twist it so they don't have to answer it: God, himself, must have a Cause. Again, most mutlideity myths include a fix for this, but Christianity doesn't.

Actually, while the problems with the "First Cause" argument are quite numerous, that's not really one of them. Well, at least not the strongest version (which is still pretty weak), which only claims "every event has a cause" rather than the blanket "everything has a cause." There is no problem on those grounds, then, since there is no requirement that all causes be events. (God would not be an event.)

In other words, they evade the 'what causes God' question by semantics. Thanks for clearing that up.

Incidentally, First Cause includes the silliness that Time is somehow finite. Every theory revolving around how the Big Bang went off involves the fact there were Universe(s) before it.

No, not really. Most versions don't have any time before the Big Bang, because they contend there was no time before the Big Bang (here, "before" is meant metaphysically and not temporally, as the latter wouldn't make any sense in this context).

This is so. However, those theories that try and tackle why the Big Bang was inevitably draw a difference between Time the dimension and Time the human concept. They're interesting reads, IMHO, but of course, rather hard to prove.

[The Question]

First Sir Nitram says this:

Every theory revolving around how the Big Bang went off involves the fact there were Universe(s) before it.

Then he backpedals and says this:

Quite a few disagree. Oscilating Universes theory, the new one about the interaction of two existing universes creating a new one..

[elvis mode] Eh thank youuu. Thank you veruh much. [/elvis mode]

[SirNitram]

First Sir Nitram says this:

Every theory revolving around how the Big Bang went off involves the fact there were Universe(s) before it.

Then he backpedals and says this:

Quite a few disagree. Oscilating Universes theory, the new one about the interaction of two existing universes creating a new one..

[elvis mode] Eh thank youuu. Thank you veruh much. [/elvis mode]

Let's congratulate Stormie, who can't differenatiate between 'theory' and 'individual'.

[The Question]

Let's congratulate Stormie, who can't differenatiate between 'theory' and 'individual'.

So which is it?

Is it that EVERY THEORY states there was a "before" the Big Bang, or just a few that make interesting reading, but which are "very hard to prove."



Hmmm.

Is it so hard to admit you fucked up? Your self-esteem that tied into an argument on a sci fi discussion board?

[SirNitram]

Let's congratulate Stormie, who can't differenatiate between 'theory' and 'individual'.

So which is it?

Is it that EVERY THEORY states there was a "before" the Big Bang, or just a few that make interesting reading, but which are "very hard to prove."



Hmmm.

Is it so hard to admit you fucked up? Your self-esteem that tied into an argument on a sci fi discussion board?

Are you so deranged you believe everyone is like you?

Nothing is 'tied' to it. I'm just amused you leapt from 'every theory that tries to explain the Big Bang presumes a before' to thinking everyone subscribes to such being my argument? No, of course not. Most don't bother to explain why the Big Bang. They just leave it as is. Those that do try to find a reason for it inevitably include a near-infinite parade backwards.

Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want.

[Darth Wong]

So what? I posited the opinion that you can't be considered a great atheist debater if you don't even know what FC is.

An opinion which focuses on the man, not the subject. Do you know what the name of that fallacy is?

At the point I took my potshot, there was no debate going on.

Not real observant on your part, Wong. Go back and look.

EvilGrey made a challenge, the others asked him to define it properly before they could continue. The subject of the thread was obvious, and you chose to ignore it and take potshots which neither clarified the situation or pointed out any logical flaw in anyone's position on any subject. Indeed, you failed to even demonstrate that YOU knew what the "first mover" argument was, because you were so busy playing rhetoric games. So you left it to one of us to finally break down and explain what EvilGrey should have defined as part of his challenge because you were obviously more interested in playing games than either taking a position, making a position, making an argument, clarifying the situation, or providing any shred of information whatsoever on any subject.

What part of this escapes your comprehension?

[The Question]

So you're sticking by this statement then, or is it wrong?

Every theory revolving around how the Big Bang went off involves the fact there were Universe(s) before it.

Yea or nay?

[Kuroneko]

Actually, while the problems with the "First Cause" argument are quite numerous, that's not really one of them. Well, at least not the strongest version (which is still pretty weak), which only claims "every event has a cause" rather than the blanket "everything has a cause." There is no problem on those grounds, then, since there is no requirement that all causes be events. (God would not be an event.)

In other words, they evade the 'what causes God' question by semantics. Thanks for clearing that up.

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but it is with accordance with logic, so I would not hold that against them. But never fear, the rest of the argument is riddled with fallacies anyway, so there is no real need to pursue this particular path in order to refute the argument as a whole.

This is so. However, those theories that try and tackle why the Big Bang was inevitably draw a difference between Time the dimension and Time the human concept. They're interesting reads, IMHO, but of course, rather hard to prove.

Well, there was a hope for a sort of birth-death-rebirth cycle for a closed universe, but current cosmology contradicts that.

[Frank Hipper]

I see Rucker's debate technique WAS exemplified during his first visit
here, way back when.

Then, he merely called everyone "faggot" by way of a rebuttal.

Now, he couches his insult in a sentence or two.

Snippet of quote here, add a little smart-assed remark for flavor, wrap it all in philosophical babble to give the impression of erudition, and voila.

[SirNitram]

So you're sticking by this statement then, or is it wrong?

Every theory revolving around how the Big Bang went off involves the fact there were Universe(s) before it.

Yea or nay?

Allow me to clarify, since you're apparantly a moron.

Every theory that attempts to resolve why the Big Bang, that I know of at the time of this posting presumes a universe before it.

If you have some wunder-theory that explains why but doesn't involve such a mechanism, feel free to post it.

[The Question]

So what? I posited the opinion that you can't be considered a great atheist debater if you don't even know what FC is.

An opinion which focuses on the man, not the subject. Do you know what the name of that fallacy is?

Gee, I stated an opinion. I wasn't making a logical argument. So gee, Wong, ad hominem doesn't apply, now does it?

Indeed, you failed to even demonstrate that YOU knew what the "first mover" argument was, because you were so busy playing rhetoric games.

Gee, I didn't know making a single post constituted "playing rhetoric games."

So you left it to one of us to finally break down and explain what EvilGrey should have defined as part of his challenge because you were obviously more interested in playing games than either taking a position, making a position, making an argument, clarifying the situation, or providing any shred of information whatsoever on any subject.

What part of this escapes your comprehension?

Why you think arguing point B proves point A. Ignoratio elenchi.

[The Question]

I see Rucker's debate technique WAS exemplified during his first visit
here, way back when.

Then, he merely called everyone "faggot" by way of a rebuttal.

Now, he couches his insult in a sentence or two.

Snippet of quote here, add a little smart-assed remark for flavor, wrap it all in philosophical babble to give the impression of erudition, and voila.

I see you have nothing of interest to add.

[SirNitram]

Actually, while the problems with the "First Cause" argument are quite numerous, that's not really one of them. Well, at least not the strongest version (which is still pretty weak), which only claims "every event has a cause" rather than the blanket "everything has a cause." There is no problem on those grounds, then, since there is no requirement that all causes be events. (God would not be an event.)

In other words, they evade the 'what causes God' question by semantics. Thanks for clearing that up.

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but it is with accordance with logic, so I would not hold that against them. But never fear, the rest of the argument is riddled with fallacies anyway, so there is no real need to pursue this particular path in order to refute the argument as a whole.

Alright.

This is so. However, those theories that try and tackle why the Big Bang was inevitably draw a difference between Time the dimension and Time the human concept. They're interesting reads, IMHO, but of course, rather hard to prove.

Well, there was a hope for a sort of birth-death-rebirth cycle for a closed universe, but current cosmology contradicts that.

I've seen a limited revival in such, actually. They seem to revolve around gravity, either that caused by two coexistant but non-coterminous universes interacting(Don't ask me.. That theory made my head bubble), and a slightly more understandable one which theorized the near-infinite gravity of a point singularity or Big Crunch should 'pinch off' a universe like a thing that reproduces by budding.

[The Question]

Allow me to clarify, since you're apparantly a moron.

Irony.

Every theory that attempts to resolve why the Big Bang, that I know of at the time of this posting presumes a universe before it.

Then you don't know much about cosmology then.

It's okay to admit that. You're in a safe place.