Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

[BishBoshMcCosh]

The problem with the cosmological argument is that its initial premise, "there must be a'first uncaused cause'", is unsound. While it might seem plausible, it is not logically necessary; it is an assumption. There is no argument that can prove it is the case, that doesn't appeal to other dubious premises. How do you answer the question 'Why must there be an uncaused cause?'

It is logically necessary, to address the problem of the infinite regress. There must be a first uncaused cause because there can't be a cause for every cause.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Agreed.
The reason for this assertion is the notion that nothing comes from nothing. So there must be a first uncaused cause? NO!
Simply if that is the justification then where did the first cause come from.

It is not even seemingly plausible, nor logical.

You're kinda missing the point here. The first cause was uncaused, it didn't 'come' from anywhere. That's possible because the first cause is God. You can disagree but nothing you said in your post actually disproves that. Simply saying something is 'illogical' doesn't make it so, you have to show why it is and you haven't.

You are contradicting yourself.
You say the first cause came from God. In other words the first cause was caused by God. What caused God?

There is no first cause because it makes no sense at all. If it is true that everything has to have a cause then, the first cause is incoherent.
If not, then there is no reason why the universe popped into existence spontaneously.

You do not seem to be thinking this through very carefully.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The problem with the cosmological argument is that its initial premise, "there must be a'first uncaused cause'", is unsound. While it might seem plausible, it is not logically necessary; it is an assumption. There is no argument that can prove it is the case, that doesn't appeal to other dubious premises. How do you answer the question 'Why must there be an uncaused cause?'

It is logically necessary, to address the problem of the infinite regress. There must be a first uncaused cause because there can't be a cause for every cause.

Rubbish.
Why cannot there be an infinite regress. Which other Universe are you comparing it with?

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Why cannot there be an infinite regress.

Because we're talking about the real world, not mathematics where numbers can regress infinitely. Real things need a cause. A series of events could theoretically proceed forward or backward but Time itself must have a cause.

Which other Universe are you comparing it with?

?

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Why cannot there be an infinite regress.

Because we're talking about the real world, not mathematics where numbers can regress infinitely. Real things need a cause. A series of events could theoretically proceed forward or backward but Time itself must have a cause.

Which other Universe are you comparing it with?

?[/quote]

You are contradicting yourself.
You say the first cause came from God. In other words the first cause was caused by God. What caused God?

There is no first cause because it makes no sense at all. If it is true that everything has to have a cause then, the first cause is incoherent.
If not, then there is no reason why the universe popped into existence spontaneously.

You do not seem to be thinking this through very carefully.

I'm not contradicting myself, you're not understanding what I actually said which was "god is the first uncaused cause". Where in that does it say that god caused himself? If he did that, then he would be his own cause, and couldn't be 'uncaused'.... it would be internally inconsistent.

You don't seem to be reading this through very carefully.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why cannot there be an infinite regress.

Because we're talking about the real world, not mathematics where numbers can regress infinitely. Real things need a cause. A series of events could theoretically proceed forward or backward but Time itself must have a cause.

Which other Universe are you comparing it with?

?

You are confusing two distinct things. A regression on maths, and a chain of causality.

Time does not have a cause. It is the measure of events, and we have no reason to suspect that events are not infinite. What happened before the Big Bang, Into what did the bing bang explode? None of these are answerable questions.
You have no legs to your argument.
We, do however, observe that for all things there are antecedent conditions we like to call causes. You are trying to pretend that there is an exception to this. But have no warrant.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You are confusing two distinct things. A regression on maths, and a chain of causality.

No, I'm not, I'm trying to ensure that you're not confusing them.

Time does not have a cause.

I see. So your'e arguing that god must have a cause, because it's impossible for something not to have a cause, but then you're arguing that Time has no cause? How are you making an exception for Time?

You have no legs to your argument.

Firstly, it's not my argument, second, at least I'm being consistent and not contradicting myself as you seem to be above, and below.

We, do however, observe that for all things there are antecedent conditions we like to call causes. You are trying to pretend that there is an exception to this. But have no warrant.

If you want to claim that time has no cause then you accept that there are exceptions and can have no problem with me claiming that god is an exception.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are confusing two distinct things. A regression on maths, and a chain of causality.

No, I'm not, I'm trying to ensure that you're not confusing them.

Time does not have a cause.

I see. So your'e arguing that god must have a cause, because it's impossible for something not to have a cause, but then you're arguing that Time has no cause? How are you making an exception for Time?

No - I'm not arguing for god at all. Please pay closer attention.

You have no legs to your argument.

Firstly, it's not my argument, second, at least I'm being consistent and not contradicting myself as you seem to be above, and below.

There is no contradiction.

We, do however, observe that for all things there are antecedent conditions we like to call causes. You are trying to pretend that there is an exception to this. But have no warrant.

If you want to claim that time has no cause then you accept that there are exceptions and can have no problem with me claiming that god is an exception.

Time is not an effect, it is a measurement of the interval between events.
God is nothing but an idea to fill a void in your brain.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

No - I'm not arguing for god at all. Please pay closer attention.

You misunderstand, I'm claiming god doesn't need a cause, and you're claiming that this can't be true, which is the same as arguing that if god existed, he would need a cause.

There is no contradiction.

We, do however, observe that for all things there are antecedent conditions we like to call causes. You are trying to pretend that there is an exception to this. But have no warrant.

There is a contradiction if you're claiming that Time doesn't need a cause, and you're wrong about that because Time does have a cause. The universe has a beginning, and Time came into existence after the universe began. So the creation of the universe was the cause of Time.

I'm not 'pretending' anything, I'm giving you an explanation for why there can't be an infinite regress. God, because of his nature, had no creator, no 'cause' because an infinite regress is logically impossible.

God is nothing but an idea to fill a void in your brain.

For the record, I don't believe in any gods, I'm simply taking the theistic position against claims like Trajic's 'god is imaginary' or your "God is nothing but an idea to fill a void in your brain" claim because they're embarrassing and simplistic and we can do better.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No - I'm not arguing for god at all. Please pay closer attention.

You misunderstand, I'm claiming god doesn't need a cause, and you're claiming that this can't be true, which is the same as arguing that if god existed, he would need a cause.

Since god is an anything you want him to be you are not really saying anything.

There is no contradiction.

We, do however, observe that for all things there are antecedent conditions we like to call causes. You are trying to pretend that there is an exception to this. But have no warrant.

There is a contradiction if you're claiming that Time doesn't need a cause, and you're wrong about that because Time does have a cause. The universe has a beginning, and Time came into existence after the universe began. So the creation of the universe was the cause of Time.

Time does not need a cause, because it is not an effect idiot.

I'm not 'pretending' anything, I'm giving you an explanation for why there can't be an infinite regress. God, because of his nature, had no creator, no 'cause' because an infinite regress is logically impossible.

If you can say that god needs no cause, then I can say the universe needs not cause. You have nothing of any worth to say here.

God is nothing but an idea to fill a void in your brain.

For the record, I don't believe in any gods, I'm simply taking the theistic position against claims like Trajic's 'god is imaginary' or your "God is nothing but an idea to fill a void in your brain" claim because they're embarrassing and simplistic and we can do better.

Then you will agree that if you can define god in any way you want, you are not making an argument, but building a fantasy.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Since god is an anything you want him to be you are not really saying anything.

You don't have to understand why there can't be an infinite regress, you just have to know that there must be a first uncaused cause for the Cosmological argument to make sense, and that uncaused cause is what people call god. As previously stated, I don't believe in god, so I don't 'want' him to be anything.

Time does not need a cause, because it is not an effect idiot.

Whether it needs one or not, it has one. Time didn't exist before the universe existed so Time was caused by the emergence of the universe into existence.

If you can say that god needs no cause, then I can say the universe needs not cause.

Sure if you want since we know of nothing existing before the universe, you'd be accepting that there can be a first uncaused cause and essentially be agreeing with that claim (which is basically the first premise in the KCA.)

Then you will agree that if you can define god in any way you want, you are not making an argument, but building a fantasy.

I'm presenting you with well known philosophical arguments for god, in an attempt to raise the level of your argument beyond what you're currently exhibiting here.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Since god is an anything you want him to be you are not really saying anything.

You don't have to understand why there can't be an infinite regress, you just have to know that there must be a first uncaused cause for the Cosmological argument to make sense, and that uncaused cause is what people call god. As previously stated, I don't believe in god, so I don't 'want' him to be anything.

You can say that all you want, does not make it true. There can be an infinite regress. Prove otherwise! There is no reason there has to be a first cause. prove otherwise. The Cosmological argument is not an argument at all. Even if you insist that there has to be a first cause, there is no warrant for calling that cause god, big bang, or the fibruous bundersnatch
The Cosmological Argument is circular. God is the first cause, there has to be a first cause therefore god has to be.
It's a fantasy for people with faith.
.

Time does not need a cause, because it is not an effect idiot.

Whether it needs one or not, it has one. Time didn't exist before the universe existed so Time was caused by the emergence of the universe into existence.
You are assuming that the universe has not always existed.
If you add time to the start of the universe then time too also came into being. This contradicts the assertion that "there was a time when the universe never existed". If time came to be with the universe then the universe has always existed in time.
You might ned to think hard about that one.

If you can say that god needs no cause, then I can say the universe needs not cause.

Sure if you want since we know of nothing existing before the universe, you'd be accepting that there can be a first uncaused cause and essentially be agreeing with that claim (which is basically the first premise in the KCA.)

No. Even by your own estimation; if there is a limit to the time of the universe (which you have no warrant for), and time came into being at the start of the universe then there was no time when the universe did not exist.
You might want to think about that.

Then you will agree that if you can define god in any way you want, you are not making an argument, but building a fantasy.

I'm presenting you with well known philosophical arguments for god, in an attempt to raise the level of your argument beyond what you're currently exhibiting here.

The argument has always been bullshit, though. You are not presenting me with anything I've not already know for 30 years.
Your attempt is behind the argument. Your arrogance is not. I'm way ahead of you.

[uwot]

It is logically necessary, to address the problem of the infinite regress. There must be a first uncaused cause because there can't be a cause for every cause.

You misunderstand logic. The job of logic is to determine whether arguments are valid. Whether they are sound, 'true' if you will, depends on the state of the universe. There is no reason to assume that the universe is ultimately logical. For instance, the premise 'The universe popped into existence completely spontaneously' is only 'illogical' if you accept the premise "There must be a first uncaused cause."

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is logically necessary, to address the problem of the infinite regress. There must be a first uncaused cause because there can't be a cause for every cause.

You misunderstand logic. The job of logic is to determine whether arguments are valid. Whether they are sound, 'true' if you will, depends on the state of the universe. There is no reason to assume that the universe is ultimately logical. For instance, the premise 'The universe popped into existence completely spontaneously' is only 'illogical' if you accept the premise "There must be a first uncaused cause."

Yes, logic as always is only as valuable as the verity of its premises; a human conceit by which we attempt to draw further conclusions on our utterances.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You can say that all you want, does not make it true. There can be an infinite regress. Prove otherwise! There is no reason there has to be a first cause. prove otherwise. The Cosmological argument is not an argument at all. Even if you insist that there has to be a first cause, there is no warrant for calling that cause god, big bang, or the fibruous bundersnatch
The Cosmological Argument is circular. God is the first cause, there has to be a first cause therefore god has to be.
It's a fantasy for people with faith.

An infinite regress of causes is logically impossible since you would never actually arrive at a cause, a chain of events can't not have a beginning, it would just be a chain of effects. It's a logical necessity that there must be a first uncaused cause.

You are assuming that the universe has not always existed.

Science has shown that the universe had a beginning, we know how old it is, and since we can't know what came before it, it's just an assumption to claim that there was anything before it. You have no way to show that the universe has always existed.

If you add time to the start of the universe then time too also came into being. This contradicts the assertion that "there was a time when the universe never existed". If time came to be with the universe then the universe has always existed in time.

Only you have claimed that. I would have phrased it 'the universe, and Time, haven't always existed'. Now there's no contradiction except the one you artificially created with the way you phrased it.