First Cause Argument

[cvanwey]

A simple 'google' search defines this argument as follows:

The first cause argument is based around cause and effect. The idea is that everything that exists has something that caused it, there is nothing in our world that came from nothing. ... Aquinas argued that this first cause must have no beginning - that is, nothing caused it to exist because the first cause is eternal.

If the above is true, and God is this first cause, then what exactly did God dwell within before He created it?​

 

[variant]

A simple 'google' search defines this argument as follows:

The first cause argument is based around cause and effect. The idea is that everything that exists has something that caused it, there is nothing in our world that came from nothing. ... Aquinas argued that this first cause must have no beginning - that is, nothing caused it to exist because the first cause is eternal.

If the above is true, and God is this first cause, then what exactly did God dwell within before He created it?​

I wouldn't think about it too hard. One of the premises is that everything requires a cause, and then you end with the conclusion that something isn't part of that everything.

 

[durangodawood]

....The idea is that everything that exists has something that caused it....

Sounds reasonable and intuitively correct.

But I think the universe (or multiverse if thats where our universe emerged from) exists and it may well be eternal and un-caused.

 

[muichimotsu]

Honestly, the only line of argument apologists tend to have for this assumes that an infinite regress is the only alternative to what is a blatant special pleading tautological fallacy that God just exists by its nature and is necessary, making it basically able to conveniently ignore the causal requirements one places on everything else.

So the problem is posed, one manufactures a solution that you don't have genuine evidence for and then present it as compelling because of what amounts to an argument from ignorance that shuts out the ideas of quantum mechanics or other natural aspects that could form a universe without it being a strictly linear progression as they seem to think it has to be scientifically on a macrocosmic level

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A simple 'google' search defines this argument as follows:

The first cause argument is based around cause and effect. The idea is that everything that exists has something that caused it, there is nothing in our world that came from nothing. ... Aquinas argued that this first cause must have no beginning - that is, nothing caused it to exist because the first cause is eternal.

If the above is true, and God is this first cause, then what exactly did God dwell within before He created it?​

Also, what did God actually do?

If there was nothing for him to act on, then he acted on nothing. To act on nothing is to do nothing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

he problem is posed, one manufactures a solution that you don't have genuine evidence for and then present it as compelling because of what amounts to an argument from ignorance

Also, what did God actually do?
If there was nothing for him to act on, then he acted on nothing. To act on nothing is to do nothing.

Both excellent points!

 

[Ophiolite]

If the above is true, and God is this first cause, then what exactly did God dwell within before He created it?

I don't see that there is any need for God to have dwelt within anything. That would be the equivalent of requiring that the universe was expanding into something. Since the question is thus rendered meaningless and certainly irrelevant I don't see how it brings the First Cause argument into doubt. (To me the weakness of the First Cause argument lies in the unsupported contention that the First Cause must be a conscious intelligence.)

 

[cvanwey]

I don't see that there is any need for God to have dwelt within anything. That would be the equivalent of requiring that the universe was expanding into something. Since the question is thus rendered meaningless and certainly irrelevant I don't see how it brings the First Cause argument into doubt.

I disagree here. Though I am admittedly not a cosmologist, physicist, astrophysicist, etc., the key here is 'anything', 'something', or 'nothing'. What do these term(s) mean to the theist in general? We'll get back to this in a moment...

It's currently understood that our 'universe' is expanding. We apparently know what our current expanding universe is made up of.... However, I feel it's safe to argue scientists do not have enough evidence to conclude what exactly lies beyond our universe'?.?.?.? Please see the link below...

(What Is Outside of Outer Space?)

Getting back to what the term 'nothing' means to theists... I do not want to introduce a strawman, but I would wager to guess 'nothing' means absence of 'anything' at all.

At some point, even before the 'Big Bang', apparently God always was. Whatever you wish to call it, (some other arena, transcendence, a spiritual realm, other), God must always dwell in 'something'? Without getting tied to finite terms, this would still seem to hold true; even if God is considered timeless, spaceless, etc...

If God always was, then whatever the heck God dwells within had to, at some point, be manufactured or created by God? If not, then God was not the only agent/thing/arena which always was

(To me the weakness of the First Cause argument lies in the unsupported contention that the First Cause must be a conscious intelligence.)

I would agree that this is certainly another weakness as well I find it quite odd that, thus far, not one theist has cared to chime in?

 

[Ophiolite]

It's currently understood that our 'universe' is expanding. We apparently know what our current expanding universe is made up of.... However, I feel it's safe to argue scientists do not have enough evidence to conclude what exactly lies beyond our universe'?.?.?.? Please see the link below...

Nothing lies beyond our universe. Our universe does not reside in anything. (Which is not the same as saying it lies in nothing.)

The pop-science link you provided suffered the problem with many pop-science links. It simplified and misrepresented to the point of being worthless.

 

[cvanwey]

Nothing lies beyond our universe. Our universe does not reside in anything. (Which is not the same as saying it lies in nothing.)

The pop-science link you provided suffered the problem with many pop-science links. It simplified and misrepresented to the point of being worthless.

You know this because?

 

[Ophiolite]

You know this because?

Consensus view of thousands of cosmologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, mathematicians etc. who have made such work their life study.

(If you were referring to my view of pop-science then the answer is, decades of contrasting my knowledge, acquired from textbooks, research papers and undergraduate studies with the simplified presentations in pop-science works.)

 

[cvanwey]

Consensus view of thousands of cosmologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, mathematicians etc. who have made such work their life study.

(If you were referring to my view of pop-science then the answer is, decades of contrasting my knowledge, acquired from textbooks, research papers and undergraduate studies with the simplified presentations in pop-science works.)

As I have not studied to the level of you, apparently, I will not contend your assertion(s) here about our known 'universe'

But what I was kind of eluding to prior, is that our 'universe' comprises of a space/time continuum, right? (rhetorical)

God is said to exist outside of space and time, right? This means that whatever realm God dwells, is outside temporal predicates and/or this 'space', right? (rhetorical)

So I again ask you, or theists whom wish to chime in, before the 'Big Bang' and our 'universe', was there complete 'nothingness'? I would assume the theist would argue that God is timeless, spaceless, and always existed. Hence, does not adhere to the 'laws' of our known 'universe'. There could not be complete 'nothingness', as this would also include the assertion of a God.

Moving forward, if God is exempt from this acknowledged space/time arena we humans know, God would still apparently reside in 'something', right? Whether it be a timeless/spaceless realm, a transcendent realm, or other...

When did God decide to produce this realm/arena? And what exactly did God dwell within before-hand?

 

[cloudyday2]

Nothing lies beyond our universe. Our universe does not reside in anything. (Which is not the same as saying it lies in nothing.)

It seems to me that phrases like "beyond" and "reside in" and "lies in" essentially assume there can be something a view in opposition to your view of the universe. So you shouldn't even try to answer a question phrased like that.

Maybe we could take an arbitrary unit of the information (call it a "granule") and imagine physics equations that describe that specific "granule". The physics equations that provide useful information about that "granule" contain variables, and all those variables are the entire universe?

I am sure this off-the-cuff definition of the universe has a lot of problems, but hopefully it illustrates what a better definition might sound like.

Now, the problem is that the equations in quantum mechanics don't necessarily specify everything we would like to know about a specific "granule" of information. Imagine the future already exists. Then we would like to know the future in detail, but we cannot know that future using the equations we have. I believe one speculation on QM is that hidden variables exist that are inaccessible in the present but define the future. That is kind of like saying that something exists beyond our universe (as I defined it above), because these hidden variables cannot be part of our physics equations.

I know I am probably getting a lot of things wrong, but maybe the larger point is correct - that the answer depends on the definition of "the universe". We can't just say "the universe" and assume the definition is obvious.

 

[cloudyday2]

Also, a pet peeve of mine is that people need to define God very clearly before they start an apologetics discussion. A "first cause" is not the same as the Bible God or a personal God or even a pantheistic God. Debating whether a "first cause" exists is not very helpful.

 

[Chriliman]

A simple 'google' search defines this argument as follows:

The first cause argument is based around cause and effect. The idea is that everything that exists has something that caused it, there is nothing in our world that came from nothing. ... Aquinas argued that this first cause must have no beginning - that is, nothing caused it to exist because the first cause is eternal.

If the above is true, and God is this first cause, then what exactly did God dwell within before He created it?​

I would think Christian theology would say something like; God eternally existed as a relationship between Father, Son and HS and the act of creating the universe was just one of an infinite amount of acts. So to answer your specific question; He dwelled within himself. Thoughts?

I will add that when I think like an atheist, I don’t really have a problem with the idea of an eternal past of existence somehow, maybe inevitably, leading to this moment.

 

[cvanwey]

Debating whether a "first cause" exists is not very helpful.

I disagree. Please take another look at the provided "Google" quote from the OP.

 

[cvanwey]

So to answer your specific question; He dwelled within himself. Thoughts?

I would need further elaboration here?

I will add that when I think like an atheist, I don’t really have a problem with the idea of an eternal past of existence somehow, maybe inevitably, leading to this moment.

If an "eternal past" is true, or "existence" always was, then "creationism" seems like an illogical argument, doesn't it?

 

[cloudyday2]

I disagree. Please take another look at the provided "Google" quote from the OP.

Hmmm, I still don't see how debating the "first cause" is helpful. Let's say I actually became convinced that a "first cause" was necessary for our universe to exist. I still wouldn't be convinced that Christianity is true. I wouldn't be convinced that any religion is true or even that gods must exist. That's why I say it isn't helpful.

 

[cvanwey]

Hmmm, I still don't see how debating the "first cause" is helpful. Let's say I actually became convinced that a "first cause" was necessary for our universe to exist. I still wouldn't be convinced that Christianity is true. I wouldn't be convinced that any religion is true or even that gods must exist. That's why I say it isn't helpful.

I agree here. The 'first cause' argument is an apologetics argument. This argument does not directly lead to the Christian God, or any other polytheistic or monotheistic variety, for that matter. I do not believe this is actually the purpose. This argument is merely 'phase 1' of the debate, in the argument for God's existence.

The objective of the OP is to engage apologists, whom use this argument as one of the key ingredients in their tool belt; or as one of the 'linchpins'.

However, thus far, I'm not really seeing much activity from theists; which seems quite odd? I've come across many whom use it in debate prior?

But on the flip side, if it should turn out there exists no "first cause", then it would seem irrational to argue for any concept of creationism at all? (i.e.) creatio ex nihilo

 

[Chriliman]

I would need further elaboration here?

Essentially, God could be defined as an eternal relationship between conscious beings. Triune God as it were. It’s a bit problematic though because it suggests 3 gods instead of just 1, or the 1 fully exists within the others.

If an "eternal past" is true, or "existence" always was, then "creationism" seems like an illogical argument, doesn't it?

Only illogical if that existence that always was, hasn’t always been conscious.