Author Topic: A First Cause Argument  (Read 4034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline swissbliss66

  • Novice
  • Posts: 1
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
A First Cause Argument
« on: January 19, 2011, 10:48:52 PM »
think about this: through science we know that we live in a cause and effect universe, in other words our universe is like a domino effect. just like in a line of dominos, one domino falls on another domino which falls on another domino causing it to fall and then that domino falls on anther domino and the pattern repeats itself all the way through the line. that is how our universe functions; cause and effect cause and effect cause and effect, anyone who studies science knows that this is true. we see this happen, for example, in the water cycle, water on the earth is caused to be evaporated into the air because of the heat applied to it from the sun made the water hot enough to evaporate into the air, then in the air it forms a cloud with other evaporated molecules of water and eventually is caused to fall back to the earth because of condensation, air temperature, etc. and the cycle goes on for as long as we have ever known. now how does the first domino fall in the first place? well an outside force that is not restricted within the domino line pushes the first domino, for example this could be a human hand pushing the domino. now then the universe following the laws of cause and effect in the exact same way a line of dominos does, what outside force caused the "first domino" to fall? evolution says it was the big bang but that process is still stuck within the confinements of the laws of cause and effect or "within the Domino line", the big bang says that all energy was brought together into the size of a small dot. the problem with that is something has to have caused the all the energy to come together into a tight space and then causing it to explode into a universe of today. so then what brought or caused all the energy of the universe to come together? maybe it was a black hole? but then what caused the black hole to form? this cycle goes on and on and on and will forever as long as you work with a natural process that is, as we all know, bound by the laws of the universe. the only logical answer is that something from outside the laws of cause and effect caused the cause and effect, essentially being an "uncaused causer" or a "god", notice i did not say christian god, or buddiest god, or Muslim god; i haven't dealt with religion but rather explained why some type of god figure or entity logically has to exist and exist outside the laws of our natural processes to allow (cause) them to take place in the first place.
if there is a flaw in my logic please respond as to what it is and why, i will gladly listen and we can properly debate the argument in logical methods[/quote]
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 10:55:12 PM by Agamemnon »

Offline VacuusMonastica

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2011, 11:25:31 PM »
Ok, I am quiet new, but this appears to be an infinite regress kind of argument . That X caused Y then you must ask what caused X and then what caused that X and what caused that X, ect...

Evolutions does not equal the Big Bang. They are two different things. Evolution explains how life changed over time and the Big Bang explains how the Universe got started. Abiogenesis is about how the inorganic can give way to life.

What is your objections to things arising through a natural process? Why do you feel there has to be an intelligence behind what created the Universe and life?

Before you believe anything always look for the beLIEve hidden within - VacuusMonastica

At any given moment, I open my eyes and exist. And before that, during all eternity, what was there? Nothing. - Ugo Betti

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2011, 12:10:29 AM »
evolution says it was the big bang

No, the Theory of Evolution doesn't say that at all.  The following is the definition of evolution from the UC Berkeley website:

Quote
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

From: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

Where in that definition is the mention of anything involving the Big Bang?



Quote
but that process is still stuck within the confinements of the laws of cause and effect or "within the Domino line", the big bang says that all energy was brought together into the size of a small dot. the problem with that is something has to have caused the all the energy to come together into a tight space and then causing it to explode into a universe of today. so then what brought or caused all the energy of the universe to come together? maybe it was a black hole? but then what caused the black hole to form?

Are you a physicist or cosmologist?  If not, then how can you academically comment on such things?
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2011, 12:12:36 AM »
Uncaused causer? Logic fail. Name it god? Illogical jump. Fail. Do some research, from real scientists, on why something can indeed come from nothing.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Doctor X

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1240
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2011, 03:19:18 AM »
1. No use of capital letters? 

2. No use of paragraphs?

3. No use of grammar?

4. No evidence of familiarity with logic?

5. No evidence of having read any of the forum prior to starting a thread as first post?

Conclusion:



--J.D.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1355
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2011, 04:52:25 AM »
buddiest god

ok, that one just hurts my eyes ... make it go away! Away!!!
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2011, 06:06:44 AM »
Giving the benefit of the doubt, I am going to go ahead and properly respond this this with science, facts and logic. Let's see where this goes.

think about this: through science we know that we live in a cause and effect universe, in other words our universe is like a domino effect.

No.

Not everything in this universe has a cause. There are random, uncaused and unpredicatable events occurring in the universe all the time, particularly when you observe it at quantum levels (i.e. the very smallest of the small). Atom decay is a fine example a random uncaused event that happens all the time.

Atom decay explains that the nucleus of an atom will randomly, without cause, emit a cluster of particles, losing energy. Because it's entirely random, it's impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.
Click here for more info on Atom decay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Quantum Mechanics has also developed scientific theories that describe what happens in the empty space inside the smallest particles.

I highly recommend you watch a lecture by Dr. Lawrence Krauss, one of the top Theoretical Physicists in the world, called "A Universe From Nothing". I've put it at the end of my post. It's an hour long but worth every second. Krauss makes it so that it's not boring at all but rather fascinating instead.

Around minute 20:00 he explains that 'nothing' is actually something. Inside the empty space of a proton (the empty space in between the quarks) there are fields of virtual particles popping in and out of existence for extremely short periods of time. As they spontaneously appear, they tend to do so in opposite pairs that cancel each other out almost immediately.

These virtual particles contribute 90% of the mass of the proton. So basically, 90% your body's mass is attributed to the random, uncaused appearance of virtual particles within the empty space between the particles that make up all the atoms in your body!

Your domino effect analogy only applies if you view a very small fraction of the universe. The one we deal with daily. The universe is a lot more than what your intuition tells you. Its properties and behavior at quantum levels are extremely counter-intuitive to us.

Quote
now then the universe following the laws of cause and effect in the exact same way a line of dominos does, what outside force caused the "first domino" to fall?

Like I said, uncaused random events occur all the time. No outside forces required.

Quote
evolution says it was the big bang

The Big Bang theory deals with an event that occurred approx 13.75 billion years ago that lead to the formation of the universe we know today.

Abiogenesis deals with how life arises from inorganic matter.

The theory of Evolution explains the processes by which diversity and complexity of life (already existing) and how it changes over time.

They are 3 seperate things. From now, please treat them as such.

Quote
the big bang says that all energy was brought together into the size of a small dot.
the problem with that is something has to have caused the all the energy to come together into a tight space and then causing it to explode into a universe of today.

No. It doesn't say it was "brought together". It says that all matter and energy in the known universe was once in a very hot very dense state that was microscopically small. This is sometime called the "singularity". The Big Bang is the event where this singularity to began to rapidly expand. It has continued to expand to what it is today, the known universe.

NOTE: There wasn't actually an explosion as in "BANG!" ... it was was just the beginning of a very rapid expansion.

By saying it was "brought together" you are implying two things:

a) That it was somehow in a state where everything was not all together before it was all together ... which is false and unjustified.

b) That something cause it to come toegther before the big bang happened... which is false and unjustified.

Quote
the only logical answer is that something from outside the laws of cause and effect caused the cause and effect, essentially being an "uncaused causer" or a "god"

How do you jump from an uncaused cause to a causer or a god? You are assuming that it must be an intelligent agent of some sort and you have absolutely no basis to make that assumption.

Like I said, the universe already has "uncaused causes" happening within it all the time. If you watch that lecture, you'll see that 'nothing' will always lead to 'something'. There is absolutely no need for a "god" of any kind for this universe to exist. Everything has a natural, scientific explanation.

Quote
if there is a flaw in my logic please respond as to what it is and why, i will gladly listen and we can properly debate the argument in logical methods

Flaws duly point out



« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 06:09:18 AM by plethora »
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2011, 06:29:10 AM »
Swissbliss:

1) Welcome to the forum
2) Please read the forum rules
3) It's ok to use big words like, evaporation, condensation and precipitation.
4) It's preferable to use paragraphs (makes it easier to read).
5) Study up on the subject b4 making a thread.
6) Be open to changing your mind, based upon the facts.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2011, 06:41:56 AM »
the only logical answer is that something from outside the laws of cause and effect caused the cause and effect, essentially being an "uncaused causer" or a "god"

First of all, I add my voice to those who implore you to use paragraphs, punctuation, et cetera.  Also that you need to learn some basic science.  Evolution says nothing about the Big Bang, as has been pointed out.

Now, regarding just this part, which is about all I could pluck out of your wall of text:

If everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause.  If anything can exist without a cause, it may just as well be the universe as god.  If, however, you insist that everything in the universe must have a cause, but that something outside the universe can exist without a cause, then you are committing the logical fallacy known as "special pleading", which you might want to read up on.  I'd give a link, but I think I'd rather see whether you're able to find any information on your own.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6215
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2011, 07:27:07 AM »
.....something from outside the laws of cause and effect caused the cause and effect, essentially being an "uncaused causer" or a "god", notice i did not say christian god, or buddiest god, or Muslim god; i haven't dealt with religion but rather explained why some type of god figure or entity logically has to exist and exist outside the laws of our natural processes to allow (cause) them to take place in the first place.
if there is a flaw in my logic please respond as to what it is and why, i will gladly listen and we can properly debate the argument in logical methods
[/quote]

Even assuming all the rest were without flaw (which it ain't, as has been explained)..... can YOU explain in what way something outside the laws of cause and effect would operate in any way that would NOT be completely random?

In other words, even if your uncaused causer god existed and created the universe, if it is so random an entity that it can make effect without requiring cause (or motivation), then in what way should it be granted title of "god", as opposed to "random pointless thing"?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2011, 10:52:00 AM »
think about this: through science we know that we live in a cause and effect universe, in other words our universe is like a domino effect. just like in a line of dominos, one domino falls on another domino which falls on another domino causing it to fall and then that domino falls on anther domino and the pattern repeats itself all the way through the line. that is how our universe functions; cause and effect cause and effect cause and effect, anyone who studies science knows that this is true.
here we go with the special pleading.....
Quote
we see this happen, for example, in the water cycle, water on the earth is caused to be evaporated into the air because of the heat applied to it from the sun made the water hot enough to evaporate into the air, then in the air it forms a cloud with other evaporated molecules of water and eventually is caused to fall back to the earth because of condensation, air temperature, etc. and the cycle goes on for as long as we have ever known. now how does the first domino fall in the first place?
yep, yep, here it comes....
Quote
well an outside force that is not restricted within the domino line pushes the first domino, for example this could be a human hand pushing the domino. now then the universe following the laws of cause and effect in the exact same way a line of dominos does, what outside force caused the "first domino" to fall?
here it is! 
Quote
evolution says it was the big bang but that process is still stuck within the confinements of the laws of cause and effect or "within the Domino line", the big bang says that all energy was brought together into the size of a small dot. the problem with that is something has to have caused the all the energy to come together into a tight space and then causing it to explode into a universe of today. so then what brought or caused all the energy of the universe to come together? maybe it was a black hole? but then what caused the black hole to form? this cycle goes on and on and on and will forever as long as you work with a natural process that is, as we all know, bound by the laws of the universe.
Please do just a little research on modern theories rather than casting about randomly.  Yes, things could be a cycle.  And we see no need for any "god".
Quote
the only logical answer is that something from outside the laws of cause and effect caused the cause and effect, essentially being an "uncaused causer" or a "god", notice i did not say christian god, or buddiest god, or Muslim god; i haven't dealt with religion but rather explained why some type of god figure or entity logically has to exist and exist outside the laws of our natural processes to allow (cause) them to take place in the first place.
No, that is not the "only logical answer".  It's the one you want becuase it supports your religion, whatever it is. If your god exists outside of the universe, how can it interact with it?  How does time pass for it?  Why must it react to puny humans? 
Quote
if there is a flaw in my logic please respond as to what it is and why, i will gladly listen and we can properly debate the argument in logical methods
which I fear really means "we can properly debate only if you agree I'm logical".
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2011, 12:20:37 AM »
I'd make a comment here but my keyboard doesn't' have enough letters to say everything I would want to say. Hence I'll say what the OP said.

Nothing.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Doctor X

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1240
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2011, 12:54:04 AM »
Yes, but it is the way you said it. . . .

--J.D.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2011, 04:54:21 AM »
Nothing from swissbliss66 yet. He hasn't logged back in since the day he joined.
I don't expect a reply to my post at this point  &) . Much less one of admission that the first cause argument is flawed and has been thoroughly debunked.
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2011, 08:56:28 PM »
The hit-and-run again.  Damn, I fell for it.  >:(
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2011, 08:59:10 PM »
The hit-and-run again.  Damn, I fell for it.  >:(

Don't beat yourself up.  I did, too.  It is very easy for your friends up there on the sanctuary moon to fall into a trap, along with your rebel fleet.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2011, 09:40:06 PM »
The first 2011 words made a case (not badly) that we always find cause-and-effect.  So there is reason to believe there is no uncaused causer.

Then he says "logically" near the begining of 113 words that contradict that without an argument except -- throwing in the word "logically".  Why is a non-sequitur logical?

BTW, if there is an uncaused causer why aren't there 2?    Or 3?   Or 12?




Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2011, 12:52:15 AM »
The punchline for all First Cause arguments is that the causal chain ends at T=0.

The joke is that Creationists think this strengthens their argument, when in fact, it terminates it.  "Before Time" is a non-sequitor.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6215
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2011, 05:25:08 AM »
BTW, if there is an uncaused causer why aren't there 2?    Or 3?   Or 12?

A VERY interesting point. 

Afadly, I seem to recall, actually addressed this in one of his many ravings.  I don't think he succeeded, but he did at least give it a go - albeit only so his Allah could be seen as more logical than the Trinity.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline LadyLucy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • No one leaves the Nightosphere
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2011, 07:23:39 PM »
think about this: through science we know that we live in a cause and effect universe, in other words our universe is like a domino effect. just like in a line of dominos, one domino falls on another domino which falls on another domino causing it to fall and then that domino falls on anther domino and the pattern repeats itself all the way through the line. that is how our universe functions; cause and effect cause and effect cause and effect, anyone who studies science knows that this is true. we see this happen, for example, in the water cycle, water on the earth is caused to be evaporated into the air because of the heat applied to it from the sun made the water hot enough to evaporate into the air, then in the air it forms a cloud with other evaporated molecules of water and eventually is caused to fall back to the earth because of condensation, air temperature, etc. and the cycle goes on for as long as we have ever known. now how does the first domino fall in the first place? well an outside force that is not restricted within the domino line pushes the first domino, for example this could be a human hand pushing the domino. now then the universe following the laws of cause and effect in the exact same way a line of dominos does, what outside force caused the "first domino" to fall? evolution says it was the big bang but that process is still stuck within the confinements of the laws of cause and effect or "within the Domino line", the big bang says that all energy was brought together into the size of a small dot. the problem with that is something has to have caused the all the energy to come together into a tight space and then causing it to explode into a universe of today. so then what brought or caused all the energy of the universe to come together? maybe it was a black hole? but then what caused the black hole to form? this cycle goes on and on and on and will forever as long as you work with a natural process that is, as we all know, bound by the laws of the universe. the only logical answer is that something from outside the laws of cause and effect caused the cause and effect, essentially being an "uncaused causer" or a "god", notice i did not say christian god, or buddiest god, or Muslim god; i haven't dealt with religion but rather explained why some type of god figure or entity logically has to exist and exist outside the laws of our natural processes to allow (cause) them to take place in the first place.
if there is a flaw in my logic please respond as to what it is and why, i will gladly listen and we can properly debate the argument in logical methods

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who literally said "holy shit" out loud when presented with this post. Followed by "my eyes!" I would post a rebuttal, but eyes seriously hurt just by looking at this.


Offline Doctor X

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1240
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2011, 10:38:28 PM »
Methinks since this was a drive-by to The Pit with it!

--J.D.

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2011, 09:18:43 AM »
think about this: through science we know that we live in a cause and effect universe,....
No, through science we know we don't. Next.

Offline liusanjie

  • Novice
  • Posts: 1
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2011, 01:48:28 AM »
Evolutions does not equal the Big Bang. They are two different things. Evolution explains how life changed over time and the Big Bang explains how the Universe got started. Abiogenesis is about how the inorganic can  give way to life.

Mod break: removed spam links.

I left the test area posts alone.  Please do not add these links into these conversation threads, that is against forum rules.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 06:22:12 AM by jetson »

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: A First Cause Argument
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2011, 03:35:59 AM »
^^^  liusanjie, I noticed some links in your post above and some of your other posts ... are you putting those there on purpose?

Looks like spam.
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.