Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

[SirNitram]

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.

And you know more? Okay, post a theory which gives a reason for the Big Bang without postulating a pre-existing Universe.

[Kuroneko]

Mr. Rucker,

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

Perhaps I've misunderstood this place all along, but methought this forum is meant specifically for debates, or at the very least the sharing of information.

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

You have done little but call people ignorant here, and for more than a single post. I wouldn't really have a problem with that, iff you also bothered to share the knowledge you implicitly claim. Since you haven't, all I can see is little more than trolling.

[Darth Wong]

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

Wrong. You argued that someone's debating skill on the question of God's existence or lack thereof must be poor if he lacks foreknowledge of common religionist arguments. Not only is that off-topic, but it is an argument, and I have explained repeatedly why it is not true. Your only rebuttal was to back off and claim that it's just an opinion. Well, too bad; you claimed that A therefore B, and that was an argument (albeit a bad one), whether you admit it or not.

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

Since I never claimed your argument to be anything but off-topic, I never claimed that it had anything to do with proving or disproving the original subject. Therefore, your rebuttal is nothing but a strawman, and a rather obvious one at that.

[Kuroneko]

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.

Sounds suspiciously like Hawking's "baby universes" concept. But I'm not really certain of the details, unfortunately, so I'll have to read up on that.

[SirNitram]

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.

Sounds suspiciously like Hawking's "baby universes" concept. But I'm not really certain of the details, unfortunately, so I'll have to read up on that.

It raises interesting possibilities, not the least of which the potential for someone sufficiently advanced to 'seed' reality with universes, like some propose a sufficiently advanced culture would 'seed' planets to make them more Earthlike. You'd never be alive to colonize them, but you'd be increasing the chances of more lifeforms.

[The Question]

Mr. Rucker,
....
You have done little but call people ignorant here, and for more than a single post.

Wong was referring to my single post which started this little off-topic tangent.

So I was referring to that.

And I think a fair reading shows I've done more than call people ignorant.

I wouldn't really have a problem with that, iff you also bothered to share the knowledge you implicitly claim.

I know enough about modern cosmology to know that current theory doesn't allow for a before the BB, and I know the First Cause argument, which Wong has already taken apart handily.

Beyond that I have simply defended my opinion, that if one doesn't know basics like FC, then one cannot be considered a great atheist debater.

But I do appreciate your kind words, and I'm glad to meet you.

[HemlockGrey]

After reading through five pages of this, I can finally die. Praise the Lord.

[The Question]

You argued that someone's debating skill on the question of God's existence or lack thereof must be poor if he lacks foreknowledge of common religionist arguments.

Yep. And that is my opinion. So I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

Are you arguing that ignorance is a virtue and strength in a debater?

Not only is that off-topic, but it is an argument, and I have explained repeatedly why it is not true.

Noooo, you attempted to redefine the terms to prove point B when I was arguing point A in support of my opinion.

That's a fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi.

I said one must know things like FC to be considered a great atheist debater, not that one must know FC to be able to take it apart.

That was your attempt at redefinition, and I won't let you get away with it.


(But I will let you have the last word, as it is late. Guten nacht. )

[Enforcer Talen]

make sure you choosethe right god, cyril. read my recent slam threads for details.

praise god, son!

[The Question]

^^^



Between god and mammon, I think I'll choose mammon.

[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.

I see you have nothing of interest to add.

Gee, it's just an observation, don't get your panties in a bunch, tough-guy.

[Darth Wong]

Yep. And that is my opinion. So I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

Are you arguing that ignorance is a virtue and strength in a debater?

Strawman fallacy. I said only that someone can be a good debater without having to know every one of his opponent's arguments beforehand, not that ignorance is a GOOD thing. It is his ability to deal with them which demonstrates his ability. You spend most of your time trying to make yourself look clever instead of actually supporting your claims: a common trick which often fools the uninitiated.

Noooo, you attempted to redefine the terms to prove point B when I was arguing point A in support of my opinion.

That's a fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi.

I said one must know things like FC to be considered a great atheist debater, not that one must know FC to be able to take it apart.

Since the term "great atheist debater" is not a recognized term and was not defined by you, you have no grounds upon which to claim that I violated your definition by defining it as one who has the necessary skills to crush religionist arguments.

That was your attempt at redefinition, and I won't let you get away with it.

It is impossible to fallaciously redefine something which was not defined in the first place, dumb-ass. If you had problems with my definition of "great atheist debater", the onus was upon you to clarify your argument when first challenged. You did not do so, and instead chose to use it as an opportunity to claim a fallacy after the fact. Too bad you didn't fool anyone. Better luck next time.

[Slartibartfast]

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

Where I live, a lot of mechanics and philosophers and physicist don't know English. Because this simply isn't either the United States or England. It is still part of the Western World (as is Italy, France, Germany). For all you know, in italian the First Cause is known as the Potenza Grande del Vindicatore, and in french a catalyptic converter is called a Catalyseur. Therefore, the analogy is valid.

"Even Philosophy professors, deep down inside, believe Philosophy is bullshit."
--Michael Palmer

[Slartibartfast]

THAT is this great First Cause? The most beaten down argument ever?

What is this that I read? Somebody knows what the First Cause is about without knowing that it is called the First Cause? This doesn't look good for Question's obnoxious nitpickery.

[Sriad]

After reading through five pages of this, I can finally die. Praise the Lord.

Amen, Rev. Grey. That Question sure is annoying, isn't it? I think I'll ignore this thread from now on.

[Slartibartfast]

^^^

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?

Well, after all, he comes from a place called Troll Kingdom. What did you think?

[Slartibartfast]

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

Irony.

He didn't say "you are 'apparantly' a bad speller" nor "'apparantly', english is not your first language" or "you 'apparantly' have problems with your keyboard".

[SirNitram]

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

Irony.

He didn't say "you are 'apparantly' a bad speller" nor "'apparantly', english is not your first language" or "you 'apparantly' have problems with your keyboard".

Hey. I'm spelling things right, everyone else is wrong. How can it be any other way, I'm God!

[Superman]

Kill me. Please, kill me.

<me>

[EvilGrey]

I'm not going to read every response in this thread quite yet, as it seems to have degenerated into a flame war of sorts...

By kojikun:

the first cause arguement is flawed because it presumes a necessary intelligence behind the "first cause" and not a natural occurance. it also violates occams razor by including an unknown as massive as the universe itself thus making the unknowns outweigh every known. thats why the first cause arguement is flawed.

Nothing of what you have said is true. Please actually read the argument before attempting to critique it. Aquinas does not presuppose the first cause as being necessarily intelligent, but argues for it later in the argument.

By AdmiralKanos:

It is a moronic argument on many levels:

It assumes that the cause must be God

No, Aquinas equates the first cause as being God. The first cause is the "creator" of existence insofar as it initiated causality, thus the first cause is what we understand to be God -- or, at the very least, a "Vague God" as I believe you once called it.

It assumes that the cause must be a sentient agent and not a natural force

See response to kojikun above.

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).

The argument says no such thing as the location of causal agents. In the example provided of the gas cloud, the agents are the constituent elements of the cloud acting upon each other in concordance with natural laws.

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

If there was no time, and consequently no movement, before the Big Bang, then nothing can exist now unless something existed to initiate causality. Science and Big Bang theory only lend further credence to the first cause argument.

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.

The argument demonstrates the logical absurdity of an infinite regress of actualized causes, thereby demonstrating the need for a cause unlike all others, namely, one that is uncaused, self-existent, and existing by necessity. This in no way violates Aquinas's premise that all causes must be caused, as the first cause is uncaused.

[Darth Wong]

Nothing of what you have said is true. Please actually read the argument before attempting to critique it. Aquinas does not presuppose the first cause as being necessarily intelligent, but argues for it later in the argument.

How?

No, Aquinas equates the first cause as being God. The first cause is the "creator" of existence insofar as it initiated causality, thus the first cause is what we understand to be God -- or, at the very least, a "Vague God" as I believe you once called it.

Causality is a logical principle, not an entity which must be created.

If there was no time, and consequently no movement, before the Big Bang, then nothing can exist now unless something existed to initiate causality.

Don't be ridiculous; you are simply replacing the word "cause" with the phrase "initiate causality" and then recycling the same argument.

Science and Big Bang theory only lend further credence to the first cause argument.

By showing that if one must define a "first mover", it would have been the Big Bang?

The argument demonstrates the logical absurdity of an infinite regress of actualized causes, thereby demonstrating the need for a cause unlike all others, namely, one that is uncaused, self-existent, and existing by necessity.

Once again, the universe itself meets those requirements.

This in no way violates Aquinas's premise that all causes must be caused, as the first cause is uncaused.

Aquinas' WHOLE ARGUMENT was that the first cause cannot be the universe itself, but must instead be something external to it. If the universe itself is the first mover, then his argument fails. You have provided not a shred of support for his position.

[The Question]

You spend most of your time trying to make yourself look clever

Believe me - here it only takes a moment or two.

To paraphrase, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man looks like an eagle-eye."

It is impossible to fallaciously redefine something which was not defined in the first place, dumb-ass. If you had problems with my definition of "great atheist debater", the onus was upon you to clarify your argument when first challenged.

I did. Several times. I can't help it if you're too lazy to notice and too busy trying to change the terms of the discussion to try to save face.

Get real, Wong.

[Darth Wong]

Believe me - here it only takes a moment or two.

To paraphrase, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man looks like an eagle-eye."

Thanks for proving my point; you are not out to prove anything, make any arguments, or provide any information. Instead, your only goal is self-aggrandizement.

I did. Several times.

Lying doesn't improve the strength of your position. Nowhere did you define "great atheist debater", nor did you directly challenge the definition that such a person can be defined by having the skills necessary to get the job done. Anyone can look through this thread and see that.

I can't help it if you're too lazy to notice and too busy trying to change the terms of the discussion to try to save face.

You aren't the former Iraqi Information Minister, are you? You're quite good at claiming victory.

[EvilGrey]

How?

How what?

Causality is a logical principle, not an entity which must be created.

It is a logical principle that must be made manifest.

Don't be ridiculous; you are simply replacing the word "cause" with the phrase "initiate causality" and then recycling the same argument.

For convenience's sake, I am using the term "initiate causality." I could've just as easily said "cause causality." This should not cause you distress as English permits one to phrase things in a multitude of ways without the fundamental meaning being altered.

By showing that if one must define a "first mover", it would have been the Big Bang?

What caused the Big Bang? That is the central question being asked, isn't it?

Once again, the universe itself meets those requirements.

The universe is God then. Despite Aquinas's Christian faith, the first cause could just as easily be pantheistic or monistic in nature.

Aquinas' WHOLE ARGUMENT was that the first cause cannot be the universe itself, but must instead be something external to it. If the universe itself is the first mover, then his argument fails. You have provided not a shred of support for his position.

I do not recall Aquinas explicitly stating this, but even if he did, the soundness of the argument is in no way mitigated.

[Darth Wong]

How?

How what?

How did Aquinas supposedly prove that the first mover must be sentient? You allude to this but do not support it.

Causality is a logical principle, not an entity which must be created.

It is a logical principle that must be made manifest.

Don't be ridiculous; are you going to argue that the concept of quantization must also have been initiated by some sentient being?

For convenience's sake, I am using the term "initiate causality." I could've just as easily said "cause causality." This should not cause you distress as English permits one to phrase things in a multitude of ways without the fundamental meaning being altered.

You're missing the point, which is that you are still arguing that the universe must have been caused by an external agent, and you have no basis for that claim.

What caused the Big Bang? That is the central question being asked, isn't it?

Answer was already given earlier, in discussion of gravitational collapse. External agents are not necessary.

The universe is God then. Despite Aquinas's Christian faith, the first cause could just as easily be pantheistic or monistic in nature.

If you define "God" as the physical universe, fine. Of course, you know perfectly well that the "first mover" argument is designed to prove the existence of a much different kind of God.

Aquinas' WHOLE ARGUMENT was that the first cause cannot be the universe itself, but must instead be something external to it. If the universe itself is the first mover, then his argument fails. You have provided not a shred of support for his position.

I do not recall Aquinas explicitly stating this, but even if he did, the soundness of the argument is in no way mitigated.

The soundness of the argument is in no way mitigated by not having a shred of support and being based on a groundless leap in logic?