Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Let's assume that all the terms involved could be defined properly. The issues you've raised would still imply that the argument fails.

 

[Lain]

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.

I see, thank you for telling me. I find the base intuitions people have and their differences to be fascinating. I'm not sure if I've ever had an atheistic intuition like that, perhaps I have always assumed the existence of God, at least as far back as I can remember.

 

[muhammad_isa]

'm not sure if I've ever had an atheistic intuition like that, perhaps I have always assumed the existence of God, at least as far back as I can remember.

Same here.

 

[Audie]

If G-d was part of His creation, it would make no sense.
How can a thing that does not exist create itself?

I don't personally believe that this universe has no reason for existing other than "fluke".

With regard to maki g things up.
This about a " fluke " is pure strawman, a made up claim re what others argue or claim.

As for Islam? If its real then, by claiming its not
made up you say all other religions are made up.

Logic, sound thinking and belief do not rely
on making things up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see, thank you for telling me. I find the base intuitions people have and their differences to be fascinating. I'm not sure if I've ever had an atheistic intuition like that, perhaps I have always assumed the existence of God, at least as far back as I can remember.

For most pleople, I think it's a matter of indoctrination I didn't get.

I mean, take this statement that I replied to:

It makes no sense that highly advanced aliens created the universe .. not to me.

It's interesting to me that a theist would post something like this, since God - if he were to exist - would be a highly advanced alien.

The compartmentalization that would be involved is pretty significant, I think, and would need a fair bit of effort to instill in a person, IMO.

 

[Audie]

I see, thank you for telling me. I find the base intuitions people have and their differences to be fascinating. I'm not sure if I've ever had an atheistic intuition like that, perhaps I have always assumed the existence of God, at least as far back as I can remember.

Good insight, however obvious.

 

[Audie]

Same here.

What does this tell you about all logic
based on this assumption?

 

[PureX]

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.

I laid the thought process out for you. All you had to do is explain where it fails. and yet ... nothing.

 

[Lain]

For most pleople, I think it's a matter of indoctrination I didn't get.

I mean, take this statement that I replied to:



It's interesting to me that a theist would post something like this, since God - if he were to exist - would be a highly advanced alien.

The compartmentalization that would be involved is pretty significant, I think, and would need a fair bit of effort to instill in a person, IMO.

Perhaps by alien he means something more biological. I just think all have a natural knowledge of God personally, so we kind of have the reverse idea about how that works here. I need to study more about the human mind, which will add to the never-ending reading list. Kyrie eleison.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Well one might argue that is one of the reasons it fails.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As for Islam? If its real then, by claiming its not
made up you say all other religions are made up..

No, I haven't said that.
There are many religious creeds in the world.
I think that most have them have evolved and are not static.

For example, I believe that Sikhism has evolved from Islam and Hindu roots.

 

[Audie]

I laid the thought process out for you. All you had to do is explain where it fails. and yet ... nothing.

Not satisfied with all the other people who've
pointed out the issues with kalam cosmo assumptions?
I think abba had a song about "it had to be you".

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's interesting to me that a theist would post something like this, since God - if he were to exist - would be a highly advanced alien.

..not in the common use of the word "alien".
Aliens have bodies, and have funny ears or something, don't they?

 

[Audie]

No, I haven't said that.
There are many religious creeds in the world.
I think that most have them have evolved and are not static.

For example, I believe that Sikhism has evolved from Islam and Hindu roots.

You made up the bit about " just happened"
I notice you clipped that out.

Whatever EXACT way you phrase it,
IF you say Islam is true, then the thousands of other religions are false. Why try to get out of it?
You think all other religions are true?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Yes. But the stuff you were actually claiming as "self-evident", is not.

I believe the same is true of God.

Which is asanine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..not in the common use of the word "alien".

In the common use of the word that I'm familiar with, God would qualify as an alien.

Ever seen Star Trek V?

Aliens have bodies, and have funny ears or something, don't they?

Some versions, sure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You are dishonestly moving the goalpost.

You previously said "We assume compassion is good".

Now you are instead saying something like we "intuitively" having compassion for our parents.
Which is a very different statement, dealing with a very different subject matter.

pssss: we also "intuitively" keep our distance from the "unkown", or "the stranger", and make room for distrust and a rather hostile attitude towards said stranger.

Intuition is not trustworthy pathway to truth.

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

Yes. You make reasons.
You don't have reasons. You make them up.
This is why you can't share them.

 

[1213]

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

Probably all arguments about the existence are just personal opinions. None can prove anything about past. But, we don't see in nature things coming into existence out of nothing, without cause. We don't see life coming from dead material spontaneously. For me that is strong evidence for God.

 

[Yazata]

I prefer this simple argument:

1. The universe exists (seemingly self-evident)

2. For all X, if X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists (principle of sufficient reason)

Principle of sufficient reason - Wikipedia

3. God is the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe (definition traditional in natural theology)

4. A sufficient reason for the universe's existence exists (from 1 and 2)

Therefore: 5. God exists (from 3 and 4)

It's pretty clearly a valid logical argument. But like all logical arguments, the truth of the conclusion is a function of the truth of the premises, in this case 1,2 and 3.

While I have no doubt about 1, that the universe exists, I have some doubt about 2. the principle of sufficient reason and about whether or not I want to accept 3.

And from the theistic point of view, this kind of argument doesn't really deliver up a theistic deity suitable for worship. It just delivers up a metaphysical function, whatever unknown explanation arguably exists for the universe's existence. Assuming such an explanation exists, it probably bears little resemblance to the deities of the traditional theistic religions.

 

[Sheldon]

I prefer this simple argument:

1. The universe exists (seemingly self-evident)

2. For all X, if X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists (principle of sufficient reason)

Principle of sufficient reason - Wikipedia

3. God is the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe (definition traditional in natural theology)

4. A sufficient reason for the universe's existence exists (from 1 and 2)

Therefore: 5. God exists (from 3 and 4)

It's pretty clearly a valid logical argument. But like all logical arguments, the truth of the conclusion is a function of the truth of the premises, in this case 1,2 and 3.

While I have no doubt about 1, that the universe exists, I have some doubt about 2. the principle of sufficient reason and about whether or not I want to accept 3.

And from the theistic point of view, this kind of argument doesn't really deliver up a theistic deity suitable for worship. It just delivers up a metaphysical function, whatever unknown explanation arguably exists for the universe's existence. Assuming such an explanation exists, it probably bears little resemblance to the deities of the traditional theistic religions.

I got as far as the assumption in 3, just type in Leprechaun instead of god, and then assume the attributes for it you assume a deity has, job done.

Therefore 5. A leprechaun exists.

I'm seeing a problem....