More problems with the First Cause Argument

[Asimov]

The basic outline for the Kalam Cosmological Arguement (KCA) is as such:

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.

 

 

Let's think for one second. Have we actually observed anything "beginning to exist"?

 

I mean sure, humans are born...trees grow, stars are born. But they come from pre-existing things.

 

What we are observing is just energy coming together into different objects. They don't begin to exist!

 

If that is true, then Number 1 is incorrect, because we've never observed anything beginning to exist.

 

 

Comments?

[Mr. Neil]

I never thought of that way, but that's a good argument. Another way I would put it is that they're taking cause-and-effect as it happens from within the known universe and applying it to the beginning of the universe.

 

Sounds similar to how they treat evolution and abiogenesis.

[MrSpooky]

Whoa. That's... very good.

[spamandham]

The basic outline for the Kalam Cosmological Arguement (KCA) is as such:

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.

Let's think for one second.  Have we actually observed anything "beginning to exist"?

 

I mean sure, humans are born...trees grow, stars are born.  But they come from pre-existing things. 

 

What we are observing is just energy coming together into different objects.  They don't begin to exist!

 

If that is true, then Number 1 is incorrect, because we've never observed anything beginning to exist.

Comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're right, but I generally like to point out that "begins to exist" implies a time when it did not exist, and that it is nothing but meaningless word salad to say "before the universe" (time being part of the universe after all). It's no different from saying something like, "since the universe can't exist outside itself, there must be something outside itself in which it exists, and that something is Jesus" or some other such nonsensical crap.

 

Further, causality does not even appear to be fundamental. It's the result of the central limit theorem at work across quantum mechanics, so all these causal arguments fall apart on that basis alone. It seems our theist friends haven't bothered to move beyond Newton.

 

Finally, as Mr. Niel pointed out, arguments involving causality and the origin of the universe are committing a categorical falacy.

[Asimov]

You're right, but I generally like to point out that "begins to exist" implies a time when it did not exist, and that it is nothing but meaningless word salad to say "before the universe" (time being part of the universe after all).  It's no different from saying something like, "since the universe can't exist outside itself, there must be something outside itself in which it exists, and that something is Jesus" or some other such nonsensical crap.

 

Further, causality does not even appear to be fundamental.  It's the result of the central limit theorem at work across quantum mechanics, so all these causal arguments fall apart on that basis alone.  It seems our theist friends haven't bothered to move beyond Newton.

 

Finally, as Mr. Niel pointed out, arguments involving causality and the origin of the universe are committing a categorical falacy.

 

I can agree with that!

[- AUB -]

Nothing is either created or destroyed, and existence has not been shown to be less probable than non-existence, nor does it need to be proceeded by non-existence. 1st cause died with Hawking. I pointed that out earlier, yes they haven’t got past Newton yet. Neither classical or Quantum physics dictate the universe had a beginning, just a origin for its current state. A watch doesn’t come into existence when it starts ticking. The only thing we know for certain is that existence is, the rest is speculation based on nothing but flaws of thinking.

[Ouroboros]

Sweeeeet!

 

This means the first cause or first mover concepts already starts with the intent to prove that God must exist.

 

The thought that "it has to have a beginning" came from Genesis in the Bible, so if we turn it around. "Nothing has a beginning", then first cause doesn't apply, and therefore can't prove God.

 

Cool. Love it!

[Asimov]

I can't believe I actually made an argument someone hasn't heard before....I come up with stuff like this, and then I find out that other people have thought of it, and that it's in books and stuff....I'm kinda proud of myself