Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[Kfox]

When I first heard of the First Cause argument, it said, "everything that exists needs a cause, and that cause is God." Now, this made no sense to me, as I immediately thought, "Well, doesn't God need a cause too if he exists?"

These days, that version of the argument has apparently fallen out of favour, due (I suspect) to that very objection. Instead, I see the following version:

1. Everything that exists had a beginning
2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
3. The Universe exists
4. Therefore the Universe had a beginning
5. Therefore the Universe had a cause
6. I call this cause, the creator of the Universe, God

This attempts to get around the obvious flaw in the previous version by saying that only things that have beginnings require causes, so God doesn't require a cause because he never had a beginning. He is ETERNAL (whatever that means).

It presents God as a "necessary being, " a being without whom nothing else would exist. It was originally proposed (at least in it's commonly known form) by Thomas Aquinas, who had four versions of this basic argument.

1. First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.
2. Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.
3. Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.
4. Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God. (SOURCE)

There have been different attempts to refute this argument. At best, some say, it proves just a creator of some vague description, without any connection to Christianity (or any other known religion). The argument could also be made that it contradicts itself by saying that everything needs a cause, then breaks this rule by making an exception for God. it also assumes that everything actually needed to have a cause. (SOURCE)

So, does this argument really hold up? Is it a valid argument for God (or a creator/deity/etc)?

#1 is still a problem. If you gonna say everything that exist had a beginning, that would mean if God exist, he had to have had a beginning. The only way I can see outta this one is to completely eliminate #1, and begin with #2 saying everything that began to exist has a cause. Now this allows for an exception for God, but it also allows the exception for everything else.

 

[Audie]

I agree that the confusion and failures of the argument are mostly due to a misuse or poor use of language.

I would maybe state it more like this:

1. The universe is comprised of all that physically exists. (Both that we know of and what we don't)

2. The universe is an ongoing event, taking place, not a static object.

3. That event was initiated somehow, by something other than itself.

4. That something, then, must exist beyond and apart from the physical universe.

5. Existence must therefor be comprised of more than just it's physicality.

As if rephraising helps.

 

[Sheldon]

It's both.

Intuitive and the best rational argument? Seriously? So you think basing a claim on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning, is comparable to not just a rational argument, but what you called the best rational argument? Sorry but the deeper you go down this rabbit hole, the more absurd it becomes. Love is a descriptor that attempts to define a range of human emotion, which may well involve intuition, as that is why it can be so fickle and unreliable. However that is as far removed from logic as I can imagine getting.

I'm saying arguments are not necessary to see God and probably won't increase anyone's faith except what helps you see God better like the our value exists in God's vision, has made me certain more.

That's a new claim that has nothing to do with your previous assertion. The argument is demonstrably irrational as presented here, as it contains known logical fallacies. I have seen no objective evidence anyone has ever seen a deity.

This is because I can't even look at myself without seeing God because God sees me is part of my existence and I exist in his sight (who I am).

Ok, however this latest raft of unevidenced claims for personal experience aside, this doesn't make the first cause argument presented here any more rational.

 

[Link]

Intuitive and the best rational argument? Seriously? So you think basing a claim on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning, is comparable to not just a rational argument, but what you called the best rational argument? Sorry but the deeper you go down this rabbit hole, the more absurd it becomes. Love is a descriptor that attempts to define a range of human emotion, which may well involve intuition, as that is why it can be so fickle and unreliable. However that is as far removed from logic as I can imagine getting.

You judge people with love eyes, you value them, appreciate them etc. If you don't rely on it, your going to be alone in life.

Love is wise and rational. It's mathematically correct to prefer needs of people over yourself for example. Selfishness is math wise incorrect you are not more valuable then everyone else all together or individually.

 

[Lain]

And God makes no sense to me.

What about it makes no sense to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Love is based on such a fallacy. We assume compassion is good, we appreciate affection, before we are intellectual or find reasons for it intellectually.

I don't need to assume any of that.

I can give you very rational and reasonable explanations for why compassion and love is preferable over cruelty and hatred.

But off course, my ethics and moral compass are off course based on reason and not on some perverse assertion of authority and / or blind obedience to perceived authority.

 

[Link]

I don't need to assume any of that.

I can give you very rational and reasonable explanations for why compassion and love is preferable over cruelty and hatred.

But off course, my ethics and moral compass are off course based on reason and not on some perverse assertion of authority and / or blind obedience to perceived authority.

You can and I can give you reasons to believe in God, but you know already morality before you justify reasons to go by it. You believe in affection and compassion of your parents before you make an argument for it.

The point is we believe in God before we make reasons for him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is somethings that are self-evident.

Obviously it isn't self-evidence because then you wouldn't need to argue about it.
Gravity is self-evident. Nobody is entering any argument about whether or not your keys will fall down or shoot off into space when you drop them.

You know it before any need of math proofs, it's intuitive and you see that to be true.

Ow, right. Kind of like how back in the day people watched the sun come up on one side, move across the sky and go down the other side and then intuitively they just knew before any need of "math proofs" that the sun went around the earth and that the earth was stationary.

Yeah... just assuming things and then believing them. Great way to learn about things and get accurate answers.

 

[Link]

Obviously it isn't self-evidence because then you wouldn't need to argue about it.
Gravity is self-evident. Nobody is entering any argument about whether or not your keys will fall down or shoot off into space when you drop them.

A line between two points being straight implying it's the shortest distance can be known through arguments or can be just seen as self-evident. You don't need arguments to prove it but you can prove it through arguments or math. Just no need to.

I believe the same is true of God.

 

[PureX]

As if rephraising helps.

It obviously rendered YOU incapable of positing a valid rebuttal.

 

[Sheldon]

As if rephraising helps.

I still saw a list of unevidenced assumptions in that rephrased argument as well.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..So you agree that the argument from first cause fails as a standalone argument for God... right?

Not exactly .. I mean, how can it be a "standalone argument", if we haven't a clue what God even means?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So...why do you do it?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to.
I didn't make up Islam myself. .

 

[Audie]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to.
I didn't make up Islam myself. .

Dont be silly. I pointed out the things you
made up.
If someone else makes things up for you
that is no improvement.

 

[Audie]

Not exactly .. I mean, how can it be a "standalone argument", if we haven't a clue what God even means?

Exactly. We dont.

 

[Audie]

I still saw a list of unevidenced assumptions in that rephrased argument as well.

Rephrasing nonsense just makes it more
clearly nonsensical.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If someone else makes things up for you
that is no improvement.

You are making a claim.
You are claiming that Islam has been made up.
I think otherwise.

God knows why I believe it.
If there is no God, it really doesn't concern me.
I have experienced "the pudding", and want more

There are many reasons that I want more.
I won't necessarily get more. That is dependent on my faith, which is in turn dependent on my deeds.

 

[Audie]

It obviously rendered YOU incapable of positing a valid rebuttal.

Ah so cute, its change the subject and try to put it on me.

A lot of things you make up are obvious to you.

The rebuttals are in any case thick about you.

But those who have an emotional commitment to nonsense have a prob that reason cannot affect.

 

[Audie]

You are making a claim.
You are claiming that Islam has been made up.
I think otherwise.

God knows why I believe it.
If there is no God, it really doesn't concern me.
I have experienced "the pudding", and want more

There are many reasons that I want more.
I won't necessarily get more. That is dependent on my faith, which is in turn dependent on my deeds.

I didnt even say islam is made up.
You are making things up, again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about it makes no sense to you?

It seems obvious to me that gods are human inventions to put a relatable face on the unrelatable.

Other things, too, but that's probably a decent starting point.