Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The First Cause Crap Argument

Expand Messages
  • doug john
    Ricardo, Thank you for your interesting post. May I give the following for your thoughtful consideration, Doug     The First Cause Argument   Perhaps the
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 30 7:11 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ricardo,
      Thank you for your interesting post.
      May I give the following for your thoughtful consideration,
      Doug
       
       
      The First Cause Argument
       
      Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First
      Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as
      you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First
      Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.

       
      That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in
      the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be.

       
      The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not
      anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can
      see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have
      any validity.

       
      I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very
      seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First
      Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's
      Autobiography, and I there found this sentence:

       
      "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since
      it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?"

       
      That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the
      argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have
      a cause
       
      If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
      God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.

       
      It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon
      an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How
      about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
      argument is really no better than that.

       
      There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;
      nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always
      existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.

       
      The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
      imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
      argument about the First Cause
      Bertrand Russell excerpt from why I am not a Christian
       http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm




      ________________________________
      From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_boncan@...>
      To: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>; Ricardo B. Boncan
      <dboncan@...>; Nathaniel Jayme <nbjayme@...>; poch suzara
      <pocholosuzara@...>; manny amador <manny.amador@...>;
      "rivera1211@..." <rivera1211@...>; merfa yap-bataclan
      <merfa5398@...>; A M <battlingmano@...>; Tierry Garcia
      <tierrytgarcia@...>; Lionel Tierra <neltierra@...>;
      "robertoortg@..." <robertoortg@...>; Jeniifer <sycnan@...>; jean
      <jean.athome@...>; Ramon Corrales <rcorrales@...>;
      Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip <isip2nay@...>
      Sent: Wed, 30 March, 2011 2:04:16 PM
      Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument


      Doug,
      Einstein's theory of general relativity describes the relationship of
      matter-space and time. Let me for the sake of clarity paste a simple definition
      or description: "The General Theory of Relativity demonstrates that time is
      linked, or related, to matter and space, and thus the dimensions of time, space,
      and matter constitute what we would call a continuum. They must come into being
      at precisely the same instant. Time itself cannot exist in the absence of matter
      and space. "
      it is also able to describe the universe and it's expansion from the singular
      event... the big bang.

      This theory describes a point where time-space and matter started which actually
      may support the inference that before this event, there must have been a causal
      being who was able to work where nothing we know existed. This being we call
      God. 


      In contrast to the so-called "revolutionary" discovery of virtual particles,
      Einstein's theory has very practical applications to our universe. The virtual
      particle discovery on the other hand occurs infrequently in the sub-atomic or
      quantum level.

      What did He do before creating the Universe/Cosmos?... the answer is we have no
      experience of that outside of our reality because we do not have any experience
      of transcendent beings. Notice that we are not describing God's make-up but
      merely inferring that there must be a necessary cause for matter-space-time.
      Since our universe is ordered, lawful and anthropic, then it must necessarily
      follow that whoever caused this must be rational as well. Also we can infer that
      since  nothing comes out of nothing or that something cannot come out of
      nothing, then this causal being must have not been created but has always
      existed... in a similar way, those who deny the existence of this eternal causal
      being we call God, are rather comfortable with the idea of a universe or cosmos
      existing in eternity... isn't that more of a stretch of an explanation?

      An analogy to this is the following: supposing we saw that there were buildings
      and structures and libraries in Jupiter but there were also no signs or traces
      of life, in other words everything is abandoned. Now, can we rightly infer that
      these were made by intelligent beings maybe even aliens. Of course we can.

      Now can we infer anything about what these aliens look like, what they did
      before making those things in Jupiter, how they acted, what they ate or how they
      dressed? No we can't because the reality of aliens is alien to us. We have no
      experience of aliens, yet, the data can make us infer that there were aliens
      there once upon a time. 


      AMDG



      Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 9:11:40 PM
      Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument


       
      Ok I will buy that but, did not Einstein prove in his theory of relativity that 
      space and time are in fact relative?
       
      Let me know your full view on this please?
       
      I am open to be convinced.
       
      Doug



      ________________________________
      From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_boncan@...>
      To: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>; Ricardo B. Boncan
      <dboncan@...>; Nathaniel Jayme <nbjayme@...>; poch suzara
      <pocholosuzara@...>; manny amador <manny.amador@...>;
      "rivera1211@..." <rivera1211@...>; merfa yap-bataclan
      <merfa5398@...>; A M <battlingmano@...>; Tierry Garcia
      <tierrytgarcia@...>; Lionel Tierra <neltierra@...>;
      "robertoortg@..." <robertoortg@...>; Jeniifer <sycnan@...>; jean
      <jean.athome@...>; Ramon Corrales <rcorrales@...>;
      Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip <isip2nay@...>
      Sent: Mon, 28 March, 2011 7:58:10 PM
      Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument


      well there was  no trillion and trillions of years because there was no such
      thing as time.


      AMDG

      integralmasterycenter.com>; Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip
      <isip2nay@...>
      Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 7:48:42 PM
      Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument


      That is different to what I was taught i.e. That God always existed and then
      created everything.

      What he was doing for trillions and trillions of years before he tried to create
      humans and then watch would they would do, either to punish them or reward them
      was never explained to me.

      Doug




      ________________________________
      From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_boncan@...>
      To: Nathaniel Jayme <nbjayme@...>; poch suzara <pocholosuzara@...>;
      manny amador <manny.amador@...>; "rivera1211@..."
      <rivera1211@...>; merfa yap-bataclan <merfa5398@...>; A M
      <battlingmano@...>; Tierry Garcia <tierrytgarcia@...>; Lionel Tierra
      <neltierra@...>; "robertoortg@..." <robertoortg@...>; doug john
      <theadamfamilyoz@...>; Jeniifer <sycnan@...>; jean
      <jean.athome@...>; Ramon Corrales <rcorrales@...>;
      Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip <isip2nay@...>
      Sent: Mon, 28 March, 2011 2:36:05 PM
      Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument


      Juvenile! Where in the first phrase was there ever mention that God is part of
      everything? Nowhere. It says the first cause of everything is God it does not
      say nor presume that God is a part everything that was caused!

      Poch you can do better than this!

      AMDG





      ________________________________
      From: poch suzara <pocholosuzara@...>





      The First Cause Crap Argument         The First Cause of Everything is God.
      Well, since God is part of everything - who or what

      caused God to begin with?


             Now we also have this
      crap about God being the designer of nature. This immediately raises a bigger
      question: who designed the designer?

            Really, if God is an invisible spirit - how does one design an invisible
      spirit?

                             Cheers!
                             Poch, Atheist

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Christ M
      Actually, according to physics, there doesn t necessarily have to be a first cause . Ricardo needs to address the latest thoughts from physicists such as
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Actually, according to physics, there doesn't necessarily have to be a "first
        cause".


        Ricardo needs to address the latest thoughts from physicists such as Stephen
        Hawkings.

        If he can't, he is full of shit. He probably isn't a physicist, so he will not
        have the mathematical abilities to refute physics.





        ________________________________
        From: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>
        To: cepol@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wed, March 30, 2011 9:11:51 AM
        Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Re: The First Cause Crap Argument


        Ricardo,
        Thank you for your interesting post.
        May I give the following for your thoughtful consideration,
        Doug


        The First Cause Argument

        Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First
        Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as

        you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First
        Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.


        That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in
        the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be.


        The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not
        anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can
        see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have
        any validity.


        I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very
        seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First
        Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's
        Autobiography, and I there found this sentence:


        "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since
        it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?"


        That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the
        argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have

        a cause

        If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
        God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.


        It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon

        an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How
        about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
        argument is really no better than that.


        There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;

        nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always
        existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.


        The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
        imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
        argument about the First Cause
        Bertrand Russell excerpt from why I am not a Christian
        http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

        ________________________________
        From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_boncan@...>
        To: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>; Ricardo B. Boncan
        <dboncan@...>; Nathaniel Jayme <nbjayme@...>; poch suzara

        <pocholosuzara@...>; manny amador <manny.amador@...>;
        "rivera1211@..." <rivera1211@...>; merfa yap-bataclan
        <merfa5398@...>; A M <battlingmano@...>; Tierry Garcia
        <tierrytgarcia@...>; Lionel Tierra <neltierra@...>;
        "robertoortg@..." <robertoortg@...>; Jeniifer <sycnan@...>; jean
        <jean.athome@...>; Ramon Corrales <rcorrales@...>;

        Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip <isip2nay@...>
        Sent: Wed, 30 March, 2011 2:04:16 PM
        Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument

        Doug,
        Einstein's theory of general relativity describes the relationship of
        matter-space and time. Let me for the sake of clarity paste a simple definition
        or description: "The General Theory of Relativity demonstrates that time is
        linked, or related, to matter and space, and thus the dimensions of time, space,

        and matter constitute what we would call a continuum. They must come into being
        at precisely the same instant. Time itself cannot exist in the absence of matter

        and space. "
        it is also able to describe the universe and it's expansion from the singular
        event... the big bang.

        This theory describes a point where time-space and matter started which actually

        may support the inference that before this event, there must have been a causal
        being who was able to work where nothing we know existed. This being we call
        God.

        In contrast to the so-called "revolutionary" discovery of virtual particles,
        Einstein's theory has very practical applications to our universe. The virtual
        particle discovery on the other hand occurs infrequently in the sub-atomic or
        quantum level.

        What did He do before creating the Universe/Cosmos?... the answer is we have no
        experience of that outside of our reality because we do not have any experience
        of transcendent beings. Notice that we are not describing God's make-up but
        merely inferring that there must be a necessary cause for matter-space-time.
        Since our universe is ordered, lawful and anthropic, then it must necessarily
        follow that whoever caused this must be rational as well. Also we can infer that

        since nothing comes out of nothing or that something cannot come out of
        nothing, then this causal being must have not been created but has always
        existed... in a similar way, those who deny the existence of this eternal causal

        being we call God, are rather comfortable with the idea of a universe or cosmos
        existing in eternity... isn't that more of a stretch of an explanation?

        An analogy to this is the following: supposing we saw that there were buildings
        and structures and libraries in Jupiter but there were also no signs or traces
        of life, in other words everything is abandoned. Now, can we rightly infer that
        these were made by intelligent beings maybe even aliens. Of course we can.

        Now can we infer anything about what these aliens look like, what they did
        before making those things in Jupiter, how they acted, what they ate or how they

        dressed? No we can't because the reality of aliens is alien to us. We have no
        experience of aliens, yet, the data can make us infer that there were aliens
        there once upon a time.

        AMDG

        Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 9:11:40 PM
        Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument


        Ok I will buy that but, did not Einstein prove in his theory of relativity that

        space and time are in fact relative?

        Let me know your full view on this please?

        I am open to be convinced.

        Doug

        ________________________________
        From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_boncan@...>
        To: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>; Ricardo B. Boncan
        <dboncan@...>; Nathaniel Jayme <nbjayme@...>; poch suzara

        <pocholosuzara@...>; manny amador <manny.amador@...>;
        "rivera1211@..." <rivera1211@...>; merfa yap-bataclan
        <merfa5398@...>; A M <battlingmano@...>; Tierry Garcia
        <tierrytgarcia@...>; Lionel Tierra <neltierra@...>;
        "robertoortg@..." <robertoortg@...>; Jeniifer <sycnan@...>; jean
        <jean.athome@...>; Ramon Corrales <rcorrales@...>;

        Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip <isip2nay@...>
        Sent: Mon, 28 March, 2011 7:58:10 PM
        Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument

        well there was no trillion and trillions of years because there was no such
        thing as time.

        AMDG

        integralmasterycenter.com>; Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip
        <isip2nay@...>
        Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 7:48:42 PM
        Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument

        That is different to what I was taught i.e. That God always existed and then
        created everything.

        What he was doing for trillions and trillions of years before he tried to create

        humans and then watch would they would do, either to punish them or reward them
        was never explained to me.

        Doug

        ________________________________
        From: Ricardo B. Boncan <r_boncan@...>
        To: Nathaniel Jayme <nbjayme@...>; poch suzara <pocholosuzara@...>;
        manny amador <manny.amador@...>; "rivera1211@..."
        <rivera1211@...>; merfa yap-bataclan <merfa5398@...>; A M
        <battlingmano@...>; Tierry Garcia <tierrytgarcia@...>; Lionel Tierra

        <neltierra@...>; "robertoortg@..." <robertoortg@...>; doug john
        <theadamfamilyoz@...>; Jeniifer <sycnan@...>; jean
        <jean.athome@...>; Ramon Corrales <rcorrales@...>;

        Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@...>; Libreo Isip <isip2nay@...>
        Sent: Mon, 28 March, 2011 2:36:05 PM
        Subject: Re: The First Cause Crap Argument

        Juvenile! Where in the first phrase was there ever mention that God is part of
        everything? Nowhere. It says the first cause of everything is God it does not
        say nor presume that God is a part everything that was caused!

        Poch you can do better than this!

        AMDG

        ________________________________
        From: poch suzara <pocholosuzara@...>

        The First Cause Crap Argument The First Cause of Everything is God.
        Well, since God is part of everything - who or what

        caused God to begin with?

        Now we also have this
        crap about God being the designer of nature. This immediately raises a bigger
        question: who designed the designer?

        Really, if God is an invisible spirit - how does one design an invisible
        spirit?

        Cheers!
        Poch, Atheist

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • ndldive
        why would this first cause be a who ?
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          <interject>

          why would this first cause be a "who"?
        • doug john
          Exactly, Doug.   ________________________________ From: ndldive To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, 2 April, 2011 9:22:19 PM
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Exactly,

            Doug.


             



            ________________________________
            From: ndldive <ndldive@...>
            To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sat, 2 April, 2011 9:22:19 PM
            Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Re: The First Cause Crap Argument

             


            <interject>

            why would this first cause be a "who"?




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.