Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[Suave]

This just pushes the problem back a step, since you now need to explain where the controller of simulations came from.

A reality based multiverse could be eternal without a beginning cause. All life there could have evolved from the earliest single-celled living organism having been formed by the enclosure of naturally occurring self-replicating R.N.A. strands and associated organic molecules within a naturally self-assembling membrane consisting of lipids. Right?

 

[Audie]

This just pushes the problem back a step, since you now need to explain where the controller of simulations came from.

And motive!

 

[Trailblazer]

I take it you reject the Big Bang theory then?

No, I do not reject the Big Bang theory, but Creation could have existed in another form before the Universe came into being.

As Sheldon said: "we know the universe had a point of origin. Though of course we don't know it what if anything existed before that." #169

"That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different. Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. Verily thy Lord is the Expounder, the All-Wise.”
Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

 

[Sheldon]

No, I do not reject the Big Bang theory, but Creation could have existed in another form before the Universe came into being.

As Sheldon said: "we know the universe had a point of origin. Though of course we don't know it what if anything existed before that." #169

If you accept we don't know if anything existed before the Planck time, how can you claim...

Creation could have existed in another form before the Universe came into being.

You're admitting you can't know anything prior to Planck time, then in the same post claiming something specific could have existed, do you not see the contradiction?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you accept we don't know if anything existed before the Planck time, how can you claim...

You're admitting you can't know anything prior to Planck time, then in the same post claiming something specific could have existed, do you not see the contradiction?

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the term Planck time.

 

[Heyo]

This just pushes the problem back a step, since you now need to explain where the controller of simulations came from.

They are just simulated entities in a bigger computer, of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the term Planck time.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the 'quantum of time', the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning.

The Planck Era is prior to 10-43 s after the Big Bang,

With its associated Planck length, the Planck time defines the scale at which current physical theories fail. On this scale, the entire geometry of spacetime as predicted by general relativity breaks down.

So you made a claim about what existed before this? after admitting we can know nothing about it?

Here:

No, I do not reject the Big Bang theory, but Creation could have existed in another form before the Universe came into being.

As Sheldon said: "we know the universe had a point of origin. Though of course we don't know it what if anything existed before that." #169

I've emboldened your claim, how can you know this?

 

[Trailblazer]

I've emboldened your claim, how can you know this?

We cannot know this with science, we can only know with with what is revealed in religious scriptures.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The whole point of the argument is to show a Creator existing. If the same conditions (needs a cause) apply to the Creator, obviously it won't prove him.

Note to Theists: see how Atheists lack common sense in analyzing arguments, don't be phased by them.

It actually doesn't get us anywhere near showing "a Creator existing."

 

[muhammad_isa]

It actually doesn't get us anywhere near showing "a Creator existing."

Not if you don't want it too

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not if you don't want it too

Whether you want it to or not, it doesn't. That's it's main flaw.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not if you don't want it too

It is valid, but not sound.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whether you want it to or not, it doesn't. That's it's main flaw.

Nothing can categorically prove that a Creator exists.
There is no need for such a proof.

Everybody is quite capable of making their own conclusions.
I have made mine.
It is quite obvious to me that the world is not here without a cause.
..and that cause is not a flippant one.

"Oh look. Human beings just happen to be here, and there is no reason for it other than a process of evolution that also just happens to be."

Yeah .. right

 

[Sheldon]

We cannot know this with science, we can only know with with what is revealed in religious scriptures.

Science certainly does not know this, nor does anybody else know what existed prior to Planck time, so your claim of knowledge is false, whatever the claimed source, as no humans currently have such knowledge, that is axiomatic.

I am not a scientist of course, but even as a laymen I have some conception of what such knowledge would mean to the scientific world, and even to the theistic world come to that? To claim such knowledge exists is frankly absurd.

 

[Sheldon]

The whole point of the argument is to show a Creator existing.

Except it'd be impossible to demonstrate that with argument alone, but if that argument is demonstrably irrational, and the one used is since it contained several known logical fallacies, then that speaks for itself, to anyone who knows or cares about making rational claims and arguments.

If the same conditions (needs a cause) apply to the Creator, obviously it won't prove him.

Prove? I saw no mathematical proof, and if you mean evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, as close a definition as I can get to the misnomer of the word prove in informal logic, then a good start would be not violating its most basic principles by including known logical fallacies, like special pleading, begging the question, and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

Note to Theists: see how Atheists lack common sense in analyzing arguments, don't be phased by them.

Common sense is a meaningless phrase in logic, but were one to apply such a vapid platitude, I imagine not using logical fallacies would an essential starting point. I can only assume you have not read the thread at all?

 

[Trailblazer]

Science certainly does not know this, nor does anybody else know what existed prior to Planck time, so your claim of knowledge is false, whatever the claimed source, as no humans currently have such knowledge, that is axiomatic.

I am not a scientist of course, but even as a laymen I have some conception of what such knowledge would mean to the scientific world, and even to the theistic world come to that? To claim such knowledge exists is frankly absurd.

I did not mean to imply that I know. I said "Creation could have existed in another form before the Universe came into being."

 

[Sheldon]

Nothing can categorically prove that a Creator exists.
There is no need for such a proof.

Proof? One shred of objective evidence would be something, anything beyond bare unevidenced assertions, or abstract ideas.

Everybody is quite capable of making their own conclusions.
I have made mine.

Groovy, but it is no different to any other unevidenced claim, and the last sentence seems rather intransigent, and closed minded.

It is quite obvious to me that the world is not here without a cause.

Well, it is obvious to quite a few people that the world is flat, what's your point?

..and that cause is not a flippant one.

Begging the question fallacy.

"Oh look. Human beings just happen to be here, and there is no reason for it other than a process of evolution that also just happens to be." Yeah .. right

Oh look, yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you do seem to enjoy making these irrational assertions as if you've invented something valuable...

Humans evolved as did all living things this is an objective scientific fact, species evolution neither needs nor evidences any deity, or anything supernatural. I suspect that is why so many theists have so much antipathy towards this scientific fact. They never seem to deny any other scientific theories, odd that?

 

[Sheldon]

I did not mean to imply that I know. I said "Creation could have existed in another form before the Universe came into being."

Well you did oringinally say it could have existed, but this is still a claim that cannot be supported with any objective evidence. You then of course said know, but we cannot claim something is possible without sufficient objective evidence.

We cannot know this with science, we can only know with with what is revealed in religious scriptures.

...

 

[Trailblazer]

Well you did originally say it could have existed, but this is still a claim that cannot be supported with any objective evidence. You then of course said know, but we cannot claim something is possible without sufficient objective evidence.

I can claim it is possible if I have REASON to believe it is possible.
There is no way to procure objective evidence of what happened billions of years ago so all we can do is surmise.

I am not the one who started this thread because I don't really think it matters what happened in the past. I live fully in the present looking towards the future. Humanity is facing so many problems in the present and that is what I think people should be focusing on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Humans evolved as did all living things this is an objective scientific fact, species evolution neither needs nor evidences any deity, or anything supernatural. I suspect that is why so many theists have so much antipathy towards this scientific fact. They never seem to deny any other scientific theories, odd that?

You're getting carried away..
My objection is to people who claim everything "just happens to be".
That is an unjustified claim, imo.