The first cause argument

[firedragon]

But you are assuming there is a first!

Thats a whole other argument. You can ask that question if you want and that can be discussed.

Just dont make logical contradictions like 1st=2nd. Direct and blatant contradiction.

Try and understand.

 

[Altfish]

Science can't answer that question.
It is clear, that if the universe did not exist , it is impossible to answer through scientific observation.
If it DID exist before the big-bang, then you are assuming some kind of infinite regression?
..which effectively means that there IS no underlying reason for the chain of events .. which is unsatisfactory. It is too hard to believe that everything we see has no initial cause or reason.

Maybe, maybe not. Scientists are working on it though,
BUT one thing is certain though religion can't answer it either.
Let's be honest religion hasn't given us many (any??) answers about the universe we live in.

 

[Altfish]

Thats a whole other argument. You can ask that question if you want and that can be discussed.

Just dont make logical contradictions like 1st=2nd. Direct and blatant contradiction.

Try and understand.

"Try and understand" and you accuse me of ad hominem attacks.

 

[firedragon]

"Try and understand" and you accuse me of ad hominem attacks.

Yes. Calling people living in fantasy world is ad hominem. Asking someone to try and understand is a request to "try and understand".

But maybe you have never heard that phrase where people tell others to try and understand something. Its strange but could be.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe, maybe not. Scientists are working on it though,
BUT one thing is certain though religion can't answer it either.
Let's be honest religion hasn't given us many (any??) answers about the universe we live in.

If you want to believe religion is against science and they should be put on two different world then you are forming your own religion of scientism.

Science cannot provide answers to any of this. And the Op is not making a religious argument.

So you are bringing in several strawman attempts. One was the God equation, which is not addressed in the OP and is clearly said, and the second one is the religious argument which is not the argument of this thread.

All of these are strawman attempts to discuss your favourite subjects. Please try and open different threads for all of these arguments.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course it isn't !
Is your opinion meaningless?

I said it was "meaningless as an explanation for the mystery of existence." The same would be true of my subjective opinion, which is why I confined my comments to logical possibilities based on evidence, and the logic that whatever you posit as a 'first cause' (which hasn't been shown to exist anyway) can't explain said mystery unless you have a logical reason why it had to exist (rather than something else or nothing at all).

 

[ratiocinator]

If it DID exist before the big-bang, then you are assuming some kind of infinite regression?
..which effectively means that there IS no underlying reason for the chain of events .. which is unsatisfactory. It is too hard to believe that everything we see has no initial cause or reason.

Again, the limitations of what you find 'satisfactory' or what you think is 'too hard to believe' are totally irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

I said it was "meaningless as an explanation for the mystery of existence." The same would be true of my subjective opinion, which is why I confined my comments to logical possibilities based on evidence, and the logic that whatever you posit as a 'first cause' (which hasn't been shown to exist anyway) can't explain said mystery unless you have a logical reason why it had to exist (rather than something else or nothing at all).

Your whole post is the exact thing that is explained in the OP.

What is unbelievable is that in being busy at positing the usual illogical defences against this argument, you are missing the only fundamental flaw in the argument. If you sit back and think clearly you will identify it. Dont be in a hurry to pose all possible defence strategies but to first think.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science cannot provide answers to any of this.

It can, however, comment on the validity the premises. A logical deduction (which is the form of the argument) can only be as good as its premises.

 

[muhammad_isa]

BUT one thing is certain though religion can't answer it either..

Why is it certain?
It does answer it, but you would rather not believe it.
That is your prerogative.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Again, the limitations of what you find 'satisfactory' or what you think is 'too hard to believe' are totally irrelevant.

As far as you are concerned, yes.
You would rather believe that there was no reason, than there being one who is superior to you being responsible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your whole post is the exact thing that is explained in the OP.

What is unbelievable is that in being busy at positing the usual illogical defences against this argument, you are missing the only fundamental flaw in the argument. If you sit back and think clearly you will identify it. Dont be in a hurry to pose all possible defence strategies but to first think.

Once again, just saying somebody is wrong, haven't thought about, or being illogical, without making the slightest attempt to explain why they are wrong. That's basically an ad hominem.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you are missing the only fundamental flaw in the argument. If you sit back and think clearly you will identify it..

Come on .. tell us .. what may that be?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.
P2: The universe has a beginning.
C : Thus its "possesses" a cause for its beginning.

Flawed premises.

 

[ratiocinator]

As far as you are concerned, yes.

Logically, yes. What relevance do you think they could possibly have?

You would rather believe that there was no reason...

I don't believe there is no reason, I just don't know. What I do know is the argument is unsound for the reasons already given (by several people).

...than there being one who is superior to you being responsible.

In what way is anything that has been suggested 'superior'? What has it got to do with responsibility?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No. Its not a scientific argument. It is not physics.

To me it’s like saying that philosophy says God is proven because the moon is a cube and when it’s pointed out that it’s a sphere, suddenly science doesn’t matter.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you are missing the only fundamental flaw in the argument..

How about this..
Is the universe "a being" ?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How is an infinite regress logically possible then?

An infinite regress will never get started in the first place. The thing will never happen.

Only if you are thinking in a limited linear fashion and ignoring that cyclical reactions can be a thing.

 

[Nakosis]

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator.

The problem with this statement to me is the idea that everything had a beginning.

I don't see objects as having a beginning. They just changed from what they were before.

Maybe 14 billion years from now, our universe will be someone else's singularity.
To them, our existence happened before the "beginning" of time.

 

[firedragon]

The problem with this statement to me is the idea that everything had a beginning.

Thats not the statement.

I don't see objects as having a beginning. They just changed from what they were before.

Thats a whole different argument. Its the contingency argument, and you defined it perfectly.

Maybe 14 billion years from now, our universe will be someone else's singularity.
To them, our existence happened before the "beginning" of time.

Maybe. Speculation. If not, how would you frame it into a proper philosophical argument?