I often wondered what caused earthquakes. Surely there must be some natural explanation for why the ground suddenly shakes and buildings fall over. Surely there must be a first cause. Then I learned that the surface of the earth is comprised of these gigantic land masses that move around on top of the hot mantle below. I decided to name these giant land masses "my shoes."

Then one day my friend called and told me to come outside and play. I told him sure, I just need to put on my shoes.

So what am I talking about here? is this first cause which i have seemingly arbitrarily named "my shoes" the same as those squishy rubbery things i wear on my feet outside?

If I have named these giant land masses "my shoes", can I then say they have the same characteristics as the squishy rubbery things I wear on my feet? My shoes are black and have a Vans logo on them. Does this mean that these giant land masses moving around on the surface of the earth are black and have a Vans logo?


I wouldn't think that I could. So I suppose one could also say that if you're going to define a seemingly arbitrary point in time as "the beginning" and say that whatever caused that "beginning" shall be named "god," Then you shouldn't then be able to attribute characteristics to that thing named "god" that are also characteristics of something else named "god." Unless you demonstrate clearly that it is, in fact, the same exact entity, without making huge assumptions and leaps in logic.

So what makes "god" the first cause?

now bear with me because I've never made a thread in RGT before and I'm not very good with formal logic.

Claiming God is the first cause is silly because any eternal system cannot have a first cause.

I'm confused. Are you basically saying that polytheism is more logical than monotheism?

Anyway, I ascribe the whole set of 'god' characteristics to God since it's my belief that the creator is no different from the one still playing with the universe. I don't see how that's more unreasonable than assuming more than one 'god' for each of these activities.

my thread has nothing to do with polytheism vs monotheism. I basically just want to see what logical justification people have for claiming that God is the first cause. If you're like Stu and say the universe was never created, then this thread does not apply to you. If you claim that your entire basis for believing that God created the universe is because your belief system says he did, then I guess this thread isn't for you either.

What i meant was, if you're going to define some arbitrary "first cause" as God, then you can't say that that arbitrary event named God (or the creator of that arbitrary event) is the same thing as your God, whom you worship.

I'll admit that this OP really wasn't all that well thought out but I decided to give it a go while I'm stuck in the computer lab studying.

Just for clarification, my position would be that this universe is likely a created subset of a larger uncreated reality. Basically it is reality that is uncreated not necessarily the universe.

Well to me, if you are calling the creator 'god' and then assuming that the other things you attribute to God are from another entity called 'god' you basically have polytheism.

So who will be in this thread? You are asking us to separate the creation job with everything else we attribute to God. But that seems arbitrary -- why separate out that specific duty? And for all the duties we attribute to this entity called "God," what do you think we use to figure out that He does them other than our belief system?

I don't see how this isn't just you wanting to redefine the word "God."

well I was hoping this thread would be more about the problem of infinite regress and theists arbitrarily choosing a stop point for the infinite regress and labeling it God for no other reason than they just want it to end at God. I hadn't really intended to discuss anything that you've written about so I'll take responsibility that my OP was just not well thought out or clear.

In another thread a theist claimed that the infinite regress problem was solved, and it turned out in the favor of theists. I found this odd and quickly slapped something together to discuss it.

My problem is that theists who feel the infinite regress is not a problem just arbitrarily choose a stop point and label it God, then say it is the God they worship as if that is some kind of solution to the problem. In fact they even make the start point as vague, yet conclusive as possible by calling it the first cause. As in, the beginning of everything. I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim whatever that vague event is is a sentient being. So I suppose the point of the OP and title was basically to point out that just because you label something with the same name doesn't mean it is the same thing.

I agree that the cosmological argument takes you back only as far as Deism, though I haven't studied it in any length so I'm only postulating.

Theists believe in a sentient God for other reasons that the comsological argument, including divine revelation, private revelation, morality, tradition, historical arguments, etc. No theist goes 'There must be a First Cause, thus God exists.

However, the cosmological argument does defend against polytheism.

Re read chapter 3 in The God Delusion and re phrase the question.

Put the idea of God aside for a moment and consider the logical problem of infinite regress of causes. The only to solve this problem to exempt one cause in the causal chain from itself having a cause. When you do this that cause with the special property becomes the first cause. This is a basic problem and solution in causality.

After rereading my post I'd like to change it to 'No theist goes (or should go) 'There must be a First Cause', thus My version of God exists'.

And that there is the main issue. How do you justify just arbitrarily choosing a stop point? You can't. Then the problem goes even further when you claim that that point is God (or was started by God). Then the problem goes even further when you claim it is a specific God, with specific attributes.

Are you for real? Read a philosophy book on the subject.

fine. Be back in a couple months.

It's the most convenient and superficially plausible explanation.

Which seems fine, until you consider that God was the most convenient and superficially plausible explanation for:

- Thunder
- Lightning
- A bad crop season
- Deformities
- Floods
- Movement of the sun across the sky

Some people are very slow learners.

I hope the answer to the universe is infinite regress of Gods. That would be sweet cause it would mess everyone up.

Like button pressed on op. Inventive and deep.