Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

It's not valid. It's just the traditional first cause argument with some hand-waving.

What's the sufficient reason for God?

Why did you assume that there's only one sufficient reason for the entire universe?

Why didn't you bother to address the possibility of sufficient reasons for the universe that aren't God?

 

[Tiberius]

I find it interesting that the bible/the story of a god has thrived on e.i outlived/outlasted many civilization's.

Exactly what we'd expect from a group of primitive people who had no idea how the world worked and yet wanted answers anyway.

 

[Tiberius]

I remember the first-cause argument slightly differently, but things change over time, I’ve noticed.

Still, to me, it continues to have weaknesses:
Its use of the words “everything” and “exist” are limited to that of physical things, within the physical world known to Man. It assumes that there is no form of existence beyond that framework, that could be immaterial, eternal, etc.

With that in mind, the argument should rather read:

• Man knows all that exists (unlikely)
• All that exists is physical (unknowable)

1. All physical existence has a beginning (true)
   
   
2. All that has a beginning, has a cause (true)
   
   
3. The universe exists (true)
   The universe is physical (true)
   
   
4. The universe has a beginning (true)
   
   
5. The universe has a cause (true)
   
   
6. We may call it what we like, as long as we understand that the cause of the universe based on this argument, must physically exist and not be immaterial, eternal, etc; because if it is and it is said to exists, the argument itself is based on false premises.

Premises 1 and 2 need to be supported.

 

[Tiberius]

"Attempts' to refute?.

Well, I didn't want it to look like I was taking sides.

 

[Tiberius]

Have you noticed that in this version god isn't even mentioned?

That is attacking the premises, i.e. the soundness of the argument.
@Tiberius asked about the validity.

I agree that even in this form the argument is either not sound or not clearly stated. I'm not sure it could be said to be valid if it is unclear.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss the soundness of the argument as well.

 

[Tiberius]

#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.

Agreed.

 

[Audie]

Well, I didn't want it to look like I was taking sides.

Just sos u know if u lean too far over backwards
U will fall flat on ur face

 

[Tiberius]

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.

What about the spontaneous production of particle/anti particle pairs? Sure, they almost instantly annihilate each other and so cancel out, but if one of those particles is destroyed (say the pair forms at the event horizon of a black hole and one of them falls in but the other doesn't), then the non-destroyed particle will not be annihilated and thus it will have appeared to have come from nothing.

 

[Yazata]

It's not valid.

It certainly seems to be. Perhaps you need to review the difference between validity and soundness in logic.

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It's just the traditional first cause argument with some hand-waving.

It isn't exactly the first-cause argument since it makes no reference to causation. It is very closely related though. Sufficient reason may actually be closer to what the medievals thought of as causation than how we use the word today. The later medievals (following Aristotle by way of Aquinas) generally thought of causation as whatever it took to account for the existence of something. Today we typically restrict the word 'cause' to efficient causation.

And there isn't any "hand-waving". I was merely attempting to make this sort of argument as simple as possible, so that its logical structure is clearly visible and what premises it's depending on are apparent.

What's the sufficient reason for God?

This sort of argument does seem to lead to infinite regresses.

Why did you assume that there's only one sufficient reason for the entire universe?

Why didn't you bother to address the possibility of sufficient reasons for the universe that aren't God?

I was merely trying to present an outline of a logically valid proof of the existence of 'God', defined in a particular way drawn from natural theology. As I indicated in my last post, I wasn't committed to the idea that it's a sound argument.

Your last objections above echo my own observation that this sort of argument doesn't really deliver us to a conventional theistic God. It just delivers whatever hypothetically fulfills a metaphysical function, namely the function of explaining the existence of the universe. To get from there to a deity suitable for worship, it would seem that additional premises would be necessary. People like William Lane Craig have tried to provide them, without success in my opinion. (That's part of why I remain an agnostic.)

Even in this form, I think that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is open to question. There might be quite a bit of collateral damage in attacking it though, since science arguably assumes it when assuming that observed phenomena require explanation. We don't account for the flight of birds as a 'given', simply by announcing that it's the nature of birds to fly. We try to uncover a sufficient reason for how they do it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

G-d is not a physical being.
He is therefore not part of the space-time continuum.
i.e. His creation


Call it special pleading, but G-d is still not part of the universe.

And you know that.....how? That's saying rather a lot, and yet it is not something to be found in any scripture that I am aware of -- yet you seem to have some special, inside information. I'm sure it would be edifying for us all if you could share it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It certainly seems to be. Perhaps you need to review the difference between validity and soundness in logic.

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Perhaps you need to put more thought into your arguments.

I know the difference between soundness and validity. Your argument isn't valid.

 

[rational experiences]

A human stands on earth inside a heavenly state.

The part he uses water oxygenated.

The reason he exists two preceding human adults. Sperm ovary. Baby created human.

Wants to practice science has to artificially invent all meaning.

Thinks about first cause change.

He wants to change his life condition.

Wants to become a spirit not bio life.

What did you think big bang blast meant to first man theist?

Obvious a law I will try to copy by a machine status.

What thesis would he give to his machine design?

Time shifter.

Was he burning first?

No.

Was the first law cause burning?

Yes.

Did you get burnt for lying brother?

Yes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you seem to have some special, inside information..

I'm not alone

If G-d created the universe, it follows that He is not part of His creation.
It is self-evident.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not alone

If G-d created the universe, it follows that He is not part of His creation.
It is self-evident.

When found ("create") a group of people, are you necessarily not part of that group?

 

[muhammad_isa]

When found ("create") a group of people, are you necessarily not part of that group?

G-d created human beings. He created all of the creatures, in whatever way He pleased [ by evolution or otherwise ].

The universe is a space-time continuum. Physical material is part of that.
G-d is not finite. He is Eternal.
His existence does not rely on "physical moving parts"

 

[Heyo]

G-d created human beings. He created all of the creatures, in whatever way He pleased [ by evolution or otherwise ].

The universe is a space-time continuum. Physical material is part of that.
G-d is not finite. He is Eternal.
His existence does not rely on "physical moving parts"

Cool story, bro. But you didn't defend that a creator is self-evidently not part of the creation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Cool story, bro. But you didn't defend that a creator is self-evidently not part of the creation.

How can G-d create Himself?
It makes no logical sense.

i.e. G-d created men [as in generic mankind], and He is a man

 

[Heyo]

How can G-d create Himself?
It makes no logical sense.

Because you ask the wrong question. The question isn't if anything can create itself,
the question is whether a creator can be part of the creation. When a performance artist creates art, can s/he be a part of that creation. (With performance arts the answer is mostly "obviously".)
With gods, ask a pantheist. S/he thinks that everything is god (i.e. the pantheist god, if it is also a creator god, created the universe from itself, not ex nihilo.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because you ask the wrong question. The question isn't if anything can create itself,
the question is whether a creator can be part of the creation. When a performance artist creates art, can s/he be a part of that creation. (With performance arts the answer is mostly "obviously".)
With gods, ask a pantheist. S/he thinks that everything is god (i.e. the pantheist god.

That is true.
However, are we not talking about the Abrahamic G-d ?
It is clear that I am, in my posts.
..and the "first cause argument" in the OP also applies to the Abrahamic G-d.

"6. I call this cause, the creator of the Universe, God"

 

[Heyo]

That is true.
However, are we not talking about the Abrahamic G-d ?
It is clear that I am, in my posts.
..and the "first cause argument" in the OP also applies to the Abrahamic G-d.

"6. I call this cause, the creator of the Universe, God"

Where do you see the word "Abrahamic" in the OP? I don't. The Kalam can be used for any creator, divine or not, Abrahamic or other. There is nothing specific in it.

(It is also a common misunderstanding that the Kalam tries to prove anything other than a creator. The non sequitur that often follows is called a "leap of faith" by believers. Logicians use a similar metaphor, they call it "jump to conclusion".)