I wanted to discuss the biggest problem I see with the first cause argument.

When Theists say "everything needs a first cause" or "everything has a creator" it is almost always in response to the suggestion that it is possible for matter or the universe to be eternal in some form. Thus, they are really just trying to tear holes in the statement "the universe doesn't need a creator" or I could rephrase this as "in theory, everything doesn't need a creator" .

Here is where the problem begins, Theists don't actually believe everything needs a creator because there is a special rule for "The creator" What they should really be saying is "everything needs a creator except God" because that is what they actually believe. However, the Atheist could just say "everything needs a creator except the creator itself" both are logically consistent and therefore the first cause argument is moot.

How is this a derivative of the too-hot burrito?

After a quick google search, I assume you are referring to the omnipotence paradox.. I don't see how that relates to this.

Take some more time. It does.

explain

KneeCo caught on before pretty much all of you did. Probably the local thing.

Anyway, no. You come up with the explanation. I'm not a essay writer for hire.

Bai.

Explanation for what? I am asking what the omnipotence paradox has to do with my OP. You are claiming it does somehow.

The problem is that we know that our universe started from the big bang, we can measure the cosmic background radiation from that event. We can also measure the cosmic redshift which shows the continued expansion of the universe from the big bang.

So, given that our universe began with the big bang, what caused the big bang? And no, you can't say something like Stephen Hawking, that because gravity exists, the universe created itself (WTF?).

Here is the brilliant William Lane Craig explaining the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg

What was the universe before the big bang? How do you know the universe in some form did not exist? My current understanding of the big bang is that all matter was just condensed into a very small point, not that all matter was created during the big bang. So in some form or another it is possible the universe has always existed.

I understand the argument, I am explaining why I think it is wrong. Saying the big bang was the start of the universe is kind of misleading in this context.

Of course you can.

You are wading way out of your intellectual depth with a arrogance inversely proportional to your depth.

So let me ask you this. If time is a dimension of the universe (it is), when time ceases to exist, does cause still exist?

It is perfectly possible for the universe to be entirely self contained. You don't have the understanding of physics aka the natural world to appreciate the concepts at play here.

Do some reading rather than talking and try to get your head around what are very difficult concepts for our intuition.

I've never heard it put this way before. Beautiful.

Tautological statement, not a claim.

I do not make claims or postulate guesses.

Try harder.

Go troll somewhere else dude. there are plenty of sections on 2p2 for you to troll. RGT is not one of them.

Both bolded statements are incorrect.

The first statement is not incorrect and the second could be, there is no way you would know this to be impossible.

Lemme demonstrate, fraleyight.

Three seconds after you read this post, you're going to feel a phantom burning around the rim of your rectal exit.

Enough proof?

Both are incorrect because I designed all this.

Get it?

Ya, I get it. You're a loon lol.

BWahahahahahahah

So where's Aaron W. been lately?

Hmm.

Night, y'all. Have fun ****ing up the idiots.

I don't really understand your argument. As you say, some theists assert that everything needs a first cause. Also, as you say, most theists don't actually believe this. Thus, if they are presenting this argument in a more rigorous manner, they'll do something like William Lane Craig and substitute a premise like:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

God didn't begin to exist (according to typical Christian theology), so this premise doesn't imply that God has a cause. This is similar to your proposed "everything needs a creator except the creator itself." I'm following you so far.

But then you say this is logically consistent with [something?] and so the argument is moot. How so?

My main problem is the whole argument relies on the universe needing a creator. The Theists have literally just replaced "universe" with "God" here. Both starting points are theoretically possible.

I see no problem with an eternal universe. Just as the theist sees no problem with an eternal creator.

Here is the Kalam Cosmological Argument from that link I gave you earlier:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4) Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).

Your response is that you think (2) is, or might be false. Okay. But that isn't enough on its own. You have to engage with the arguments given by theists and other people for thinking that the universe did begin to exist.

For instance, as noted by a couple people in this thread. according to some popular cosmological models of the universe, the universe did begin to exist. Maybe you have some reason to think that these cosmological theories of the universe are false. But you haven't presented these reasons.

Furthermore, theists also present arguments that attempt to show that time must have a beginning - thus showing that the universe could not be eternal. Maybe you think these arguments are all bad. But you haven't shown that here.

Isnt the clam "everything that beings to exist has cause" kind of empty without examples of something beginning to exist in the way the universe began to exist?

Meaning its often said, as self evident, existing things need a cause. Ok makes sense, but we are not talking about a pocket watch. If the theist is right there is nothing in this universe that i have seen "begin to exist" which was caused in the way in which the universe is said to. Creation of matter.

Ya all got nothing to back up everything that beings to exist has a cause. At least not if you use those words consistently.


I always feel baited and switched on this one.