• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Thoughts on an anti-"First Cause" syllogism?

Meaningless twaddle. Argument through arbitrary definitions. Utter crap. Double intellectual standards. I could go on.

In what respect are the definitions arbitrary? Do you deny, for instance, that causation is, in its very nature, temporal? If you do, why, and do you have a counterexample?

Do you deny that a timeless being cannot have a position in time relative to something else? It strikes me as akin to saying a square not plotted on graph paper can have a symetrical relationship to a shape on graph paper.
 
Jeez God Apologies really haven't come up with anything new since Aquinous have they?

The entire "First Cause" malarky is an exercise is double standards, silly word games, and thinking you can call "God" something else and make it all work.

The entire argument is a meaningless bit of circular nonsense.

1. Something has to be the first cause.
2. That thing has to be God because I'm defining God as capable of being a First Cause.

It's meaningless. All you've done is put a variable on both sides of the equation then defined one variable as proving the other.

Here I'll do the same thing. I'll prove X = Y. I'll just define X as "Anything that equals Y." Now let's see... X=Y! Holy crap I've solved the mystery of the universe!

See? When you control variable on both the question and answer side you aren't doing anything impressive when you make it all equal.
 
Last edited:
It could have always been expanding at an accelerating rate, in which case it would never have "started" or been zero in size.

I don't really have an opinion about whether or not that's actually the case, but it's a nice hypothetical alternative to assuming that the universe had a beginning, so I like to use it when I can.

(Cue the "infinite regression" counterargument in 3, 2, 1...)

Actually, that's not infinite regression, that means something different.

But yes, essentially it going asymptotic towards minus infinity, so to speak, is a definite possibility. It's actually one of the things I had in mind when I went, "Maybe it just always existed."

Not gonna argue with you about it, really. I just view it as you said, as an alternative to the universe having a start.
 
@Joe Bentley:
Well, in all fairness, if you actually read Aquinas, let's just say there is a reason why it's a whole book, and not just, 'I like to believe in a first cause, derp."

There are several arguments which for a whole, they're not just independent idiocies, and are based on perfectly normal philosophy at the time.

E.g., why one first cause and not 2? Because according to Plato, one of something must came before two of that. Nowadays we know it's not true (look up quarks and gluons), but at the time it passed for just the learned man explanation for how the universe works.

Also it was not just 'something must move the planets, and we'll just arbitrarily name that "God"'. All those arguments are not redundand independent arguments, but define various aspects of something that, as far as anyone knew at the time, had to be God. Basically it's not a first cause OR an unmoved mover, it's something that has to be both first cause AND unmoved mover and a whole bunch of other stuff. And when you put all those roles together, within the frameork of the science at the time, it's kinda hard for anything to do ALL that without at least making one wonder about it being God.

The average moron quoting Aquinas nowadays, though, is just that: a moron. They don't actually understand all that, and probably didn't read Aquinas at all in the first place, much less understand the finer points of it. It's just a moron wanting to believe in a sky daddy, and just quote mining WHATEVER for whatever looks like a quick way to rationalize his idiotic delusions.

But it's somewhat unfair to judge Aquinas by the idiots who quote-mine him, just like it's unfair to judge Adam Smith by the cretins who quote HIM out of context.
 
Doesn't this really just make up a timeless God so that the first part of the argument does not invalidate the existence of God? What is the evidence that God is timeless, except the need to get around the logic of the first part of the argument? It is made up, then used as if it is a logical argument. God needs to be "timeless" to have "him" create the universe, so he "must be timeless." Or not exist at all.
 
Actually, that's not infinite regression, that means something different.

I know that wasn't infinite regression. What I meant is that I was expecting someone to bring up infinite regression in order to argue that the universe couldn't have existed forever.

I've heard that argument given in videos, and was half expecting to see it pop up here.

Something along the lines of: If the universe existed forever, then an infinite number of moments would have had to have passed before this one arrived, and so we could have never have gotten to this moment in time unless the universe had a beginning.

Of course, the flaw in that argument starts to become apparent if you ask yourself: "An infinite number of moments since when?"
 
People actually make that kind of a stupid argument? I mean, forget theology or physics, but if they didn't outright sleep in school when real numbers came up, they ought to be able to figure out that equally an infinite number of moments passed since they started to write their message.

Then again, considering the quality of some other apologetics, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
 
Well, that's some neurons I'm not getting back :p

In all fairness, though, he doesn't make the argument that an infinity of moments is the same as infinite regress. His argument is about a series of causes and effects, and, best I can understand it, it goes like:

- Aquinas says that everything must have a cause
- and nothing can be its own cause (so I guess the "cause" of a galaxy can't be its own gravity:p)
- so everything A had a cause B, and B had a cause C, and C had a cause D, etc
- so, err, then I need an un-caused first cause, or, derp, I created a stupid infinite regress, and I totally don't want to claim an infinite regress

It is a stupid argument, don't get me wrong. Not the least because he just disproved his premise by turning it all into an ad-absurdum. We can probably agree very quickly about that one.

But it's about an infinite regress of causes and effects, not merely about the existence of an infinite number of moments. Best I can understand it, anyway.
 
Last edited:
@Joe Bentley:
Well, in all fairness, if you actually read Aquinas, let's just say there is a reason why it's a whole book, and not just, 'I like to believe in a first cause, derp."

And I have and truth be told (a combination of my own fat fingers and auto-correct mangling his name in my previous post not withstanding) I do find him to be an amazing thinker, probably the only truly great intellectual the Church has ever produced.

I've often in fact semi-jokingly called Aquinas the first atheist. Not because of any belief he himself held of course but because he was one of the first people to argue that if God existed he could be proven with evidence and reason not just through blind faith.

That all being said I think his "Five Proofs" are... well not that logically sound.
 
Well, maybe not "sound", or at the very least not in the modern sense of the world but at the time most of those premises passed for perfectly good.
 

My response to that, to quote myself from another thread.

True believers don't want to admit this because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but we know who created God:

Humans created God.

Unlike them, I have plenty of evidence to support my case. God has human attributes and limitations, such as emotions. He shows anger, compassion, hatred, love, jealousy, and regret. He is often described as having human physical features, like arms, feet, eyes, breath, and voice. He produced a human offspring, who was born of a human, and who physically resembles whichever culture believes in him. He communicates in human language and acts according to human wants and needs. He plays favorites among cultures or ethnic groups on Earth, protecting some while punishing others. He interacts and intervenes in human affairs, and is often referred to as a father figure. He is a character in a book written by humans, each with their own personal, social, and political agendas. In all these respects, he is very similar if not identical to the thousands of other deities humans have created throughout history.

God is not an omnitemporal, extraspatial, unknowable, or alien entity. God IS human. He is a reflection of the best and worst among us, our hopes and fears, and our potential to create or destroy. He is the explanation for everything we do not yet know, or are unwilling to accept. He serves whatever purpose we require, and changes as human cultures evolve.

Humans create the gods that create them in turn.
 
How about an argument along these lines...

P1. Time is an inherent property or aspect of the universe.
P2. If the universe did not exist, time could not exist.C1. There is no time when the universe did not exist.

P3. Only things that did not exist can be caused to exist.
P4. There is no time when the universe did not exist.
C2. The universe cannot have been caused to exist.

Are we sure that time could not exist anywhere else outside of our/a/the universe?
 
Do we have any reason to believe that there is anywhere else outside of our/a/the universe?

From where I stand, no. But I wasn't asking about beliefs, I was asking about knowledge. Are you sure?
 
How about this as a reply?:

God contains the universe
God is more than the universe
God interacts with the universe
There has never been a time when God has not interacted with the universe
God can control all events in the universe
The universe is bounded in time and space
God is not bounded in time and space
God could destroy the universe if God wished
The universe (or anything in it) could not destroy God
We (in the universe), are limited in our understanding by the spatial and temporal boundaries of the universe
God's knowledge has no such limitations

Therefore, in many senses God has priority over the universe, and this state of affairs is what 'creation' is properly meant to refer to, in the religious sense. There simply is no human word outside of scripture that comes close to pointing towards all these attributes of God's relationship to creation, perhaps 'ontological priority', or 'transcendent', would be the closest options. This is what is truly meant by 'holy'.
 
Last edited:
How about this as a reply?:

God contains the universe

No evidence. Logically impossible.

God is more than the universe

Meaningless doublespeak.

God interacts with the universe

Such interactions would leave evidence and there is none.

There has never been a time when God has not interacted with the universe.

See above.

God can control all events in the universe

No evidence.

The universe is bounded in time and space

True but...

God is not bounded in time and space

Special pleading.

God could destroy the universe if God wished

Meaningless without evidence.

The universe (or anything in it) could not destroy God

Meaningless without evidence.

We (in the universe), are limited in our understanding by the spatial and temporal boundaries of the universe
God's knowledge has no such limitations

Special pleading again.

Therefore, in many senses God has priority over the universe, and this state of affairs is what 'creation' is properly meant to refer to, in the religious sense. There simply is no human word outside of scripture that comes close to pointing towards all these attributes of God's relationship to creation, perhaps 'ontological priority', or 'transcendent', would be the closest options. This is what is truly meant by 'holy'.

No this is what is truly meant by "special pleading."
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom