Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[Sheldon]

neither can God.

So no different to the cheese moon then, I think you might be starting to see the problem.

 

[Lain]

Ponder this analogy:

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. Lightning begins to exist.
C: Lightning has a cause.
Def: I call this cause "Zeus".

Seems legit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems legit.

It is valid, but not sound.

 

[Sheldon]

It is valid, but not sound.

I think it was meant as irony?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it was meant as irony?

No, it is valid as far as I can tell, but not sound. You do know the meaning of those 2 terms in regards to deductive logic?

 

[Sheldon]

No, it is valid as far as I can tell, but not sound. You do know the meaning of those 2 terms in regards to deductive logic?

I'm pretty sure they meant it as irony...they were not really arguing for an extant Zeus.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm pretty sure they meant it as irony...

Who are they?

 

[Sheldon]

Who are they?

Really, the posters who wrote the argument and the one who responded, obviously. I seriously doubt they were arguing for an extant Zeus.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really, the posters who wrote the argument and the one who responded, obviously. I seriously doubt they were arguing for an extant Zeus.

Well, I have already been in this thread. So again, the deduction is as far as I can tell valid, but not sound. And it has not to do with Zeus per se.

 

[Trailblazer]

So no different to the cheese moon then, I think you might be starting to see the problem.

What is a problem for you is not a problem for me.
The only objective evidence for God are the Messengers that God sends to represent Him.
God cannot be tested but the Messengers can be put to the test to see if they are telling the truth.

 

[Sheldon]

What is a problem for you is not a problem for me.

Clearly as a cheese moon that is not testable is something I'd be dubious about.

The only objective evidence for God are the Messengers that God sends to represent Him.

That's not objective evidence, it is very subjective.

God cannot be tested

Like the cheesy moon then, compelling.

but the Messengers can be put to the test to see if they are telling the truth.

Well by all means demonstrate some objective evidence this is possible or has been done, as I am extremely dubious.

 

[Heyo]

Really, the posters who wrote the argument and the one who responded, obviously. I seriously doubt they were arguing for an extant Zeus.

I wrote the analogy to illustrate that even if the argument is valid and sound, that that what it argues isn't what people think it does.
I defined Zeus into existence by giving it the attribute "that what causes lightning" which is incidently one characteristic attribute of what is known as Zeus.
Just notice what it doesn't explain or define.

 

[Sheldon]

I wrote the analogy to illustrate that even if the argument is valid and sound, that that what it argues isn't what people think it does.
I defined Zeus into existence by giving it the attribute "that what causes lightning" which is incidently one characteristic attribute of what is known as Zeus.
Just notice what it doesn't explain or define.

Yes, I saw the rationale, I didn't for a minute think you were arguing that Zeus is real. That's one of the problems with first cause arguments, they just assume a deity is the cause, and as you say, one can assume anything and the argument is no less valid.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not objective evidence, it is very subjective.

It is objective evidence but the way people interpret the evidence is both objective and subjective.

Well by all means demonstrate some objective evidence this is possible or has been done, as I am extremely dubious.

It is possible to test the Messengers by looking at the objective evidence.

Proofs of Prophethood​

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.”
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

 

[Sheldon]

It is objective evidence but the way people interpret the evidence is both objective and subjective.

It's a subjective claim, there is no objective evidence anyone has ever received any revelation from any deity. Calling them messengers of god, doesn't lend any credence to the claim, anymore than calling everything creation, lends credence to creationism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's no justification to call that thing "God." And, even if you could show it was a God, you'd still have a lot of work ahead of you to show it's the specific God(s) you believe in..

The G-d of Abraham has many independent witnesses from different eras.
You can accuse them all of being a conspiracy, but that would be just a claim by atheists, who wish to ignore the strength of the evidence.

Also, we'd still have no explanation as to what mechanism God(s) used to create/cause the universe to come into existence

Mechanism? This reality would not be here if G-d didn't exist.
It is only "real" as G-d is maintaining the illusion.
What is matter? What is energy? What are particles? What is antimatter?
Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future, or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness?

The main problem with it though, is that it claims there can be no infinite regress, but then the God(s) that is inserted into the equation is posited to be eternal.

It is not that it can't be an infinite regress, it's that the evidence suggests that it is not the case. [expanding]
Philosophically, it is also an unsatisfactory solution to a definite conclusion.

 

[Sheldon]

The G-d of Abraham has many independent witnesses from different eras.

No it doesn't, just bare claims for such. Hitchens's razor applied slash....

 

[Sheldon]

You can accuse them all of being a conspiracy, but that would be just a claim by atheists, who wish to ignore the strength of the evidence.

I don't claim anything as all you've offered is a bare claim, yet again, and you have yet to demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence, just bare subjective claims.

This reality would not be here if G-d didn't exist.

Circular reasoning, as are most begging the question fallacies...

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's a subjective claim, there is no objective evidence anyone has ever received any revelation from any deity..

There you go again with your idea of objective evidence.
It seems that what a person considers objective is a subjective opinion.
Have we got any objective evidence that Christianity and Islam are major civilisations? Yes.
Have we got objective evidence that Jesus and Muhammad are real historical people? Yes.
Have we got objective evidence of what they claimed? Yes.

bla bla bla .. @Sheldon, you are a like a broken record. You just keep on saying that there is no objective evidence of a deity.
What you really mean is that 'a god' can't be categorically proved.
We know that. Many of us think that it is unnecessary.
..and yes, we have heard of argumentum populum, but that doesn't mean that those people are any more irrational than you are.

 

[Sheldon]

There you go again with your idea of objective evidence.
It seems that what a person considers objective is a subjective opinion.

Read more carefully, I said you had only offered a subjective claim, claiming people have had revelations from a deity is a subjective claim, claiming this is objective evidence is a subjective claim, get to the bit where you actually present or demonstrate
any of this objective evidence you keep making bare assertions exists.

Have we got objective evidence that Jesus and Muhammad are real historical people? Yes.

There is objective evidence JK Rowling is real, that doesn't make wizardry real. See the problem yet?

Have we got objective evidence of what they claimed? Yes.

I have objective evidence of what JK Rowling wrote in the Harry Potter novels, is the penny dropping here at all?

bla bla bla .. @Sheldon, you are a like a broken record.

Ad hominem fallacy, sigh.

What you really mean is that 'a god' can't be categorically proved.

Straw man fallacy.

So another disjointed rant, peppered with logical fallacies, and bare claims that objective evidence exist, but tellingly no actual objective evidence demonstrated at all.