The Cosmological Argument for a Creator

[CharlieFinley]

Of all the arguments for god which can be neatly expressed as syllogisms, this is one of the more effective. What do you think?

1. Some limited, changing beings exist.
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being, because an infinite regress of causes of being would not cause the existence of anything.
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, and one.

[huginnmuninn]

I was with you until number 5. You are making assumptions that don't necessarily have to be true.

[TigerBoy]

Of all the arguments for god which can be neatly expressed as syllogisms, this is one of the more effective. What do you think?

1. Some limited, changing beings exist.
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being, because an infinite regress of causes of being would not cause the existence of anything.
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, and one.

Is this Thomas Aquinas?

My first reaction to this is that there are alternate scenarios that may or may not be covered by this broad definition of "caused by another", some of which would then render the syllogism invalid and step 5 unsound.

Does "caused by another" include "caused by the presence of another" or "caused by the conscious actions of another"?

[Iris]

You are making an argument for god based on science's lack of true understanding of the universe, in the same way people argued for god when they assumed the world revolved around the earth. Simply because we do not fully comprehend the Origin of everything, does not mean there is a supernatural deity that intimately participates in all of our lives, which is generally what is assumed by the name 'god.' At best this argument weakly supports Deism; at worst it's delusional, misguided, and invalid, and simply a way to for people to feel better about the lonely empty chasm that is space and life. There's also a very basic kink in the argument, which is that your immediate assumption that a deity we define as god was the cause, when this god may very well be feeding this delusion as a greater, more powerful being and/or cause has left/ended.

[TigerBoy]

I was with you until number 5. You are making assumptions that don't necessarily have to be true.
To be fair, if you don't have a problem before step 5, then step 5 cannot logically be wrong. The whole point of a syllogism is to present you with statements which - if true - lead you to an inevitable conclusion.


You are making an argument for god based on science's lack of true understanding of the universe, in the same way people argued for god when they assumed the world revolved around the earth. Simply because we do not fully comprehend the Origin of everything, does not mean there is a supernatural deity that intimately participates in all of our lives, which is generally what is assumed by the name 'god.' At best this argument weakly supports Deism; at worst it's delusional, misguided, and invalid, and simply a way to for people to feel better about the lonely empty chasm that is space and life. There's also a very basic kink in the argument, which is that your immediate assumption that a deity we define as god was the cause, when this god may very well be feeding this delusion as a greater, more powerful being and/or cause has left/ended.

I think it is unfair to claim this argument is delusional where it attempts to be rational, but you haven't explained why you think it is delusional.

Misguided is an emotive term that isn't relevant to the veracity of the syllogism but something of an ad hominem attack on Charlie: is your issue that he's proselytising by posting this, or is he somehow not abiding by the spirit of the forum perhaps?

Invalid - we'll see :P

The kink in the argument you describe as an assumption - there is no assumption here. An assumption is a conclusion without basis. The whole point of the syllogism is to lay out the reasoning for its conclusion.

Your final point is an excellent one, however you haven't explained how the syllogism fails to demonstrate the "eternal" conclusion in step 5.

[CharlieFinley]

Is this Thomas Aquinas? I think so. I saw it in Flew's There Is a God.

My first reaction to this is that there are alternate scenarios that may or may not be covered by this broad definition of "caused by another", some of which would then render the syllogism invalid and step 5 unsound.

Does "caused by another" include "caused by the presence of another" or "caused by the conscious actions of another"?
I'm not really sure, but I don't see how it's relevant. I don't say that to demean your questions, but rather because I don't know what you're getting at.

[TigerBoy]

I think so. I saw it in Flew's There Is a God.

I'm not really sure, but I don't see how it's relevant. I don't say that to demean your questions, but rather because I don't know what you're getting at.

If the statement in 2) is that conscious action is required, it would not be correct since we know that not all forms of reproduction require conscious action.

If the statement includes the possibility of a passive bystander, then so necessarily does the conclusion in step 5, leaving us with a creative impetus that was accidental / incidental.

There is a third possibility where we describe mechanisms for 1) formation of amino acids and 2)organisms deriving from those amino acids which then renders step 2 false.

So essentially until we clarify / correct step two, the syllogism as it stands is invalid. If you make it valid per the first suggestion, the conclusion is false. If you use the second suggestion, it is both valid and sound, and the third point probably implies a complete rewrite.

[Iris]

I think it is unfair to claim this argument is delusional where it attempts to be rational, but you haven't explained why you think it is delusional.

That's like saying a conspiracy theorist that outlines the government's perceived suspicious actions to prove he has a microchip in his brain is rational. It's not how the argument is presented that's at fault; the argument itself is flawed, by taking a turn of events and trying to pin it on the most inconclusive and unverifiable of causes, instead of coming to the conclusion that we do not have enough information to understand at this time, or at least trying to explain it in a way that carries more credence (ie, science over religion).

Misguided is an emotive term that isn't relevant to the veracity of the syllogism but something of an ad hominem attack on Charlie: is your issue that he's proselytising by posting this, or is he somehow not abiding by the spirit of the forum perhaps?

Misguided in using this argument as the one to prove that god exists. Ultimately we cannot prove whether god exists or not. I call myself an atheist but if I wanted to be truly rational, I'm really an agnostic, as there is no way we can prove or disprove an entity like god. Technically we cannot even prove that unicorns and dragons don't exist, and a deity such as god that is supposedly all powerful can never be disproved, no matter how much evidence is stacked against it. Similarly, there's no way to conclusively say that a deity such as god exists, we must instead look at the arguments for and against, and discover which pile is bigger.


The kink in the argument you describe as an assumption - there is no assumption here. An assumption is a conclusion without basis. The whole point of the syllogism is to lay out the reasoning for its conclusion.

This clear, seemingly rational argument is inherently flawed, because by arguing that all things are created, the concept of god is contradictory. Once 'something cannot come from nothing' is established, I don't see why there must be one exception, instead of an alternate solution. Anything with the powers we prescribe to god would need a pretty big something to happen, in fact. Perhaps the real issue here is that the thought of an infinite chain of events is too explosive, and incredibly difficult to comprehend. Or perhaps we are still searching for the Beginning, the Origin, and will discover that maybe nothing isn't nothing or something can come from nothing. I'm going to wait and see, instead of jumping to fantastical conclusions.

Your final point is an excellent one, however you haven't explained how the syllogism fails to demonstrate the "eternal" conclusion in step 5.

The argument for eternal is not relevant once I've established god is not The Cause. Besides, one can argue that everything is eternal, as matter is constantly being recycled. The creation that this argument may call god should be no different.

My main argument in this discussion is simply that our lack of understanding does not mean god, as we understand it, is the Reason, and the Cause. The 'answer' religions provide on the subject are simple to the point that it insults the complex beauty of something we barely understand. For this argument to be truly rational, we must turn to the conclusion that is also the most rational, and the idea of god is far from that.

[TigerBoy]

That's like saying a conspiracy theorist that outlines the government's perceived suspicious actions to prove he has a microchip in his brain is rational. It's not how the argument is presented that's at fault; the argument itself is flawed, by taking a turn of events and trying to pin it on the most inconclusive and unverifiable of causes, instead of coming to the conclusion that we do not have enough information to understand at this time, or at least trying to explain it in a way that carries more credence (ie, science over religion).
Prove it. You are making claims but not showing how the argument is flawed. What it 'pins on' is a conclusion arrived at based on information we do have. You have totally failed to address any of the premises of the argument, and so presently your rejection of it stands as irrational.


Misguided in using this argument as the one to prove that god exists.
Then you are making an ad hominem attack on Charlie and not addressing the actual argument he makes. This point is thus both irrelevant and unfair.


Ultimately we cannot prove whether god exists or not. I call myself an atheist but if I wanted to be truly rational, I'm really an agnostic, as there is no way we can prove or disprove an entity like god.
Thus far you are not being rational, you are responding in a closed minded manner by not addressing the argument which has been presented to you and attacking the OP.

This clear, seemingly rational argument is inherently flawed, because by arguing that all things are created, the concept of god is contradictory.
And because you haven't actually addressed the argument presented, you have failed to see how this point was actually made. The OP hasn't claimed "all things are created", but then you'd see that if you responded to what was asserted, not what you've assumed.

Once 'something cannot come from nothing' is established,
Which you haven't done as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to wait and see, instead of jumping to fantastical conclusions.
Again, no conclusions have been jumped to save by yourself. The syllogism gives steps to its conclusion.

The argument for eternal is not relevant once I've established god is not The Cause.
The identity of the Cause is at best incidental to this syllogism, and you have not disproven either god or the cause, thus "eternal" is still relevant.

Besides, one can argue that everything is eternal, as matter is constantly being recycled.
Not really. If a thing is recycled it ceases to be that thing. Your definition only applies in the narrowest sense to the energy and matter of which things are made, and even then it is predicted that entropy leads to the heat death of the universe, at which point recycling ceases.

My main argument in this discussion is simply that our lack of understanding does not mean god, as we understand it, is the Reason, and the Cause.
The main issue with your main argument is that you haven't actually addressed the argument posited, and gone off on numerous tangents about your own views.

The 'answer' religions provide on the subject are simple to the point that it insults the complex beauty of something we barely understand. For this argument to be truly rational, we must turn to the conclusion that is also the most rational, and the idea of god is far from that.
You're preaching to the choir here, to use an inappropriate aphorism. The point is that if you want to convince anyone (eg the OP) you need to actually address the points they've made in a genuinely rational manner.

[Gigablue]

1. Some limited, changing beings exist.

True. However, the qualifying of the word being is somewhat misleading, as it implies that unlimited or in hanging beings exist, which has not been proven.

2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.

Not necessarily true. While everything in our everyday lives follows such a pattern. There is no reason to assume that everything does. It is possible that the universe, for instance, began without a cause.

3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being, because an infinite regress of causes of being would not cause the existence of anything.

True, if there are no acausal events, which there are.

4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.

What caused the first cause?

5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, and one.

Why must it be infinite? Nothing leads to that conclusion.

The first cause is not necessary, as was shown above.

To be eternal, you must be outside of time, which effectively renders you unable to do anything, including exist in the universe.

What does it mean that it must be one?

If there is a first cause, what is it? It can't be material, since it would then require a cause, but it can't be immaterial, since it then couldn't interact with the material? It can't be timeless, since time is necessary to act, but it can't have time, since, by your logic, time also required a cause. A first cause is unnecessary and creates more problems than it resolves.

[Iris]

Prove it. You are making claims but not showing how the argument is flawed. What it 'pins on' is a conclusion arrived at based on information we do have. You have totally failed to address any of the premises of the argument, and so presently your rejection of it stands as irrational.

Relax dude, I was getting there.

Thus far you are not being rational, you are responding in a closed minded manner by not addressing the argument which has been presented to you and attacking the OP.

Lol. If close-minded is presenting my point from the most scientific viewpoint possible, then yes, I am responding in a 'close-minded manner.' I am close-minded to anything other than logic and reason, as well as the assumption that something that cannot be proven is being proven. The horror.

The OP hasn't claimed "all things are created",


2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.

Which you haven't done as far as I'm concerned.

Uh, I don't have to and I'm not trying to. That's what the cosmological argument is doing.

Again, no conclusions have been jumped to save by yourself. The syllogism gives steps to its conclusion.

Do you see the title of this thread? The 'for a creator' part? Then the 'best argument for god' part in the thread? That's a big whopping conclusion. Coming to the conclusion that we do not yet have a conclusion, as I've done, is not an actual conclusion. It's more of an open-ended question waiting for more information in order to form a truly logical argument.

The identity of the Cause is at best incidental to this syllogism, and you have not disproven either god or the cause, thus "eternal" is still relevant.

The identity of the cause is vital, as it is only eternal if it is god the way we understand it. Something that somehow transcends the very laws the cosmological argument is attempting to set down, may or may not be eternal; it depends if you want to turn around and go back on your claim that matter is 'only narrowly' recycled (though yes, you can nitpick again and argue that technically matter is destroyed as the world experiences entropy, but again, irrelevant to the larger point), in which case the Creator is part of everything.

Not really. If a thing is recycled it ceases to be that thing. Your definition only applies in the narrowest sense to the energy and matter of which things are made, and even then it is predicted that entropy leads to the heat death of the universe, at which point recycling ceases.

When the entire discussion in this thread is on things being made, it is very appropriate of me to fix my discussion of matter on things that are being made. The form matter takes my change, but it will always remain the same subatomic particles.

Then you are making an ad hominem attack on Charlie and not addressing the actual argument he makes. This point is thus both irrelevant and unfair.

This is called nit picking. The argument used by this original intelligent individual is misguided in attempting to use logic to come to illogical conclusions. Why is the conclusion illogical, you might ask? Read on, and you'll find out. There. Same point, more PC. Waste of three minutes of my life.

The main issue with your main argument is that you haven't actually addressed the argument posited, and gone off on numerous tangents about your own views.

The argument is whether there is a First Cause to the Universe, in the attempt to establish that there is a supreme being we call god.

My main answer is maybe, maybe not, because from the most rational and logical viewpoint we cannot know. Is not the aim of the cosmological argument to be rational and logical?

Furthermore, I say that while we cannot draw any conclusions based on our very limited knowledge of the universe, this particular argument is ineffective because it is contradictory, in arguing that all things must be created, and then claiming that there's a creator that somehow transcended the former, established law. As all the laws the argument establishes are contingent on the laws before, this renders the argument invalid.

Finally, since this particular argument is contradictory, and we cannot understand at this point with our level of knowledge what may be the Cause if there was a Cause, I'm suggesting we turn to more scientific hypotheses instead of closing the door on the search for understanding by pinning on an easy answer where there is none.

[CharlieFinley]

If the statement in 2) is that conscious action is required, it would not be correct since we know that not all forms of reproduction require conscious action.

If the statement includes the possibility of a passive bystander, then so necessarily does the conclusion in step 5, leaving us with a creative impetus that was accidental / incidental.
"Leaving us with the possibility of a creative impetus that was accidental." I find that one hard to swallow just on the basis of the idea that an omnipotent being (as we would reckon the term) wouldn't tend to do things by accident.

Incidental... now we're getting somewhere interesting. :D

There is a third possibility where we describe mechanisms for 1) formation of amino acids and 2)organisms deriving from those amino acids which then renders step 2 false. The problem with that is that the current evidence for evolution of life by chance is really, really bad. It would dictate that life took billions of years after the cooling of the earth to begin to form in a manner that would permit evolution, but sedimentary records show that that just isn't the case.
True. However, the qualifying of the word being is somewhat misleading, as it implies that unlimited or in hanging beings exist, which has not been proven. The limited, changing bit is just there to contrast with the unlimited, unchanging bit that comes next.

Not necessarily true. While everything in our everyday lives follows such a pattern. There is no reason to assume that everything does. It is possible that the universe, for instance, began without a cause.
If by "possible," you mean "conceivable," then I suppose it is, but the idea is strongly condemned by even atheistic philosophers.

True, if there are no acausal events, which there are.

Like what?

What caused the first cause?
Nothing, by definition. Why must it be infinite? Nothing leads to that conclusion. To be eternal is to be infinite. :P

To be eternal, you must be outside of time, which effectively renders you unable to do anything, including exist in the universe. Actually, there are several texts that I think I have somewhere in my kindle on the subject. Do you want the names? I've not yet had the chance to peruse them.

What does it mean that it must be one? It means it must be a cohesive whole. I must confess I have no idea why that was included, but the syllogism should function just as well without it.

If there is a first cause, what is it? It can't be material, since it would then require a cause, but it can't be immaterial, since it then couldn't interact with the material? It can't be timeless, since time is necessary to act, but it can't have time, since, by your logic, time also required a cause. A first cause is unnecessary and creates more problems than it resolves.
I don't think you've established that time is necessary for the hypothetical first Cause to act. Also, I think I may also have some excellent texts on how an immaterial Cause can interact with the material. Would you care for names?

[TigerBoy]

"Leaving us with the possibility of a creative impetus that was accidental." I find that one hard to swallow just on the basis of the idea that an omnipotent being (as we would reckon the term) wouldn't tend to do things by accident.
I hear you, however that relies on assumptions outside the scope of the syllogism.


Incidental... now we're getting somewhere interesting. :D
The problem with that is that the current evidence for evolution of life by chance is really, really bad. It would dictate that life took billions of years after the cooling of the earth to begin to form in a manner that would permit evolution, but sedimentary records show that that just isn't the case.
Strictly that doesn't matter. If we stipulate that it is possible that the science becomes more sound, or that theories around meteorites introducing primitive life from elsewhere prove viable, then it still points to a flaw in the second premise since it wouldn't encompass that possibility. If a creator was responsible for engendering the science that resulted in life, then the conclusion would still be true while the current version of premise 2 is false, thus the syllogism is logically invalid.

On a side note, there are apparently (http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/lifeform.htm)microbacteria fossils dated to be 3.5 billion years old, so that would appear to contradict your statement.



Relax dude, I was getting there.
Please do :P I'm perfectly chilled, I assure you.


Lol. If close-minded is presenting my point from the most scientific viewpoint possible, then yes, I am responding in a 'close-minded manner.' I am close-minded to anything other than logic and reason, as well as the assumption that something that cannot be proven is being proven. The horror.
I already explained how I considered your behaviour to be such. I refer you to my previous post if you are still in doubt. The precise reason I am responding to your posts is because you are not applying logic or reason, as I have demonstrated.


Uh, I don't have to and I'm not trying to. That's what the cosmological argument is doing.
Then you won't have a problem showing us where the syllogism states "something comes from nothing". Again, prove it.

Do you see the title of this thread? The 'for a creator' part? Then the 'best argument for god' part in the thread? That's a big whopping conclusion. Coming to the conclusion that we do not yet have a conclusion, as I've done, is not an actual conclusion. It's more of an open-ended question waiting for more information in order to form a truly logical argument.
An argument can be true or false. You claim to understand logic, but clearly you don't. Here we have an argument, which you have yet to prove false. Please feel free.


The identity of the cause is vital, as it is only eternal if it is god the way we understand it.
I have no understanding of god since I don't believe such a being exists. Your statement is also fallacious since you are assuming that the only eternal thing in the universe could be this 'god' of yours - what evidence do you have for this claim?

Something that somehow transcends the very laws the cosmological argument is attempting to set down, may or may not be eternal; it depends if you want to turn around and go back on your claim that matter is 'only narrowly' recycled (though yes, you can nitpick again and argue that technically matter is destroyed as the world experiences entropy, but again, irrelevant to the larger point),
Funny :) Stating facts, using logic and science are not 'nitpicking' now? Does that only apply to arguments inconvenient to your position, I wonder?



in which case the Creator is part of everything.
Not something we can really conclude, since if he exists, he existed before 'everything else'.



When the entire discussion in this thread is on things being made, it is very appropriate of me to fix my discussion of matter on things that are being made. The form matter takes my change, but it will always remain the same subatomic particles.
I think you need to study Plato on Forms, Aristotle's theory of Universals, and Betrand Russell's work on the same. In a nutshell, if you jumped into lava your matter and energy would survive but you as an individual recognisable entity would no longer exist. You are not eternal, your matter /energy is (as far as science knows).



This is called nit picking. The argument used by this original intelligent individual is misguided in attempting to use logic to come to illogical conclusions. Why is the conclusion illogical, you might ask? Read on, and you'll find out. There. Same point, more PC. Waste of three minutes of my life.
Again, addressing errors in your position is quite legitimate in a debate. It is not a personal attack, it is me playing the game of debating.

If you understood logic, you would actually attempt to point out flaws in that logic (as I have been doing) or falsehoods in the premises. In this post - as your previous one - you have ignored the specific statements in the original post and instead opined on your related views but - and this is critical - not shown how they link to and affect the original post.


Furthermore, I say that while we cannot draw any conclusions based on our very limited knowledge of the universe, this particular argument is ineffective because it is contradictory, in arguing that all things must be created, and then claiming that there's a creator that somehow transcended the former, established law.
Which law was former and established? Which step of the syllogism gives this law you refer to?


As all the laws the argument establishes are contingent on the laws before, this renders the argument invalid.
Yes, that is how syllogisms work. Its the essential feature of this logical form.


Finally, since this particular argument is contradictory, and we cannot understand at this point with our level of knowledge what may be the Cause if there was a Cause, I'm suggesting we turn to more scientific hypotheses instead of closing the door on the search for understanding by pinning on an easy answer where there is none.
If it is contradictory then you have yet to show where. If you look at my earlier posts you will see how I am arguing it is invalid and why.

While I agree with you on the 'easy answer' issue, offering a different hypothesis is simply expressing an opposing argument which still needs to be proven true or false, and doesn't extend our knowledge.

[Iris]

Then you won't have a problem showing us where the syllogism states "something comes from nothing". Again, prove it.

Seriously? I just quoted the OP, who wrote, in his argument "The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another." That means everything has a creator. That is where it is written. Right there. I'm not arguing that something came from nothing and neither is the OP. I have no idea where you got that from.

An argument can be true or false. You claim to understand logic, but clearly you don't. Here we have an argument, which you have yet to prove false. Please feel free.

An argument with insufficient evidence to support either claim is not one that is logical or rational. Loving the irony of insisting I do not understand logic. What were you saying about ad hominem? Real cute.

I have no understanding of god since I don't believe such a being exists. Your statement is also fallacious since you are assuming that the only eternal thing in the universe could be this 'god' of yours - what evidence do you have for this claim?

You are clearly not understanding a word I've said. For one, god as we understand it means a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, absolute, eternal, one etc etc etc. As for your second misunderstanding, my point was that another creator, or god as the pandeists understand it, would cease to exist (according to you, as you wouldn't not consider the matter that was once god, still god, as you mentioned numerous and irrelevant times).

Funny :) Stating facts, using logic and science are not 'nitpicking' now? Does that only apply to arguments inconvenient to your position, I wonder?

Do you know what ad hominem is? Arguing that my argument is invalid because I said the 'OP's' argument is invalid rather than simply 'the argument' is invalid is nitpicking. Including facts that have no bearing on the argument at hand, is irrelevant, not nitpicking.


Not something we can really conclude, since if he exists, he existed before 'everything else'.

My whole point is that we can throw in theories, but that there can be no conclusion. Catching up?

In a nutshell, if you jumped into lava your matter and energy would survive but you as an individual recognisable entity would no longer exist. You are not eternal, your matter /energy is (as far as science knows).

You are looking at this from the shallowest of ways. This is talking about a possible creator, something that may or may not have created everything. That means we are talking about the very very basics of what is, as after The Creation was the big bang, when everything was in its very basic form.

If you understood logic, you would actually attempt to point out flaws in that logic (as I have been doing) or falsehoods in the premises. In this post - as your previous one - you have ignored the specific statements in the original post and instead opined on your related views but - and this is critical - not shown how they link to and affect the original post.

Which law was former and established? Which step of the syllogism gives this law you refer to?

Yes, that is how syllogisms work. Its the essential feature of this logical form.

If it is contradictory then you have yet to show where. If you look at my earlier posts you will see how I am arguing it is invalid and why.


Not writing in big shiny letters 'FLAW IN LOGIC NUMBER ONE,' does not mean I have not addressed the flaws in the logic. But I'll humor you.

FLAW IN LOGIC NUMBER ONE: I am addressing the argument as a whole before pinpointing exactly where within the argument there are flaws. The argument itself is flawed in assuming that we can know whether there is a creator or not. As a creator is something we cannot see or measure in any scientific fashion, it cannot be proven to exist. For the same reason, we cannot prove that it does not exist. END OF FLAW NUMBER ONE.

FLAW IN LOGIC NUMBER TWO: The OP states that "the present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another." This means that everything was created by something else. Continuing to say that "Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings," or that there was a first cause, contradicts the premise of the original law the argument established, because by saying everything has a creator, it is logically unstable to say later that something does not have a creator. It's that simple. END OF FLAW NUMBER TWO.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSION-that's-not-actually-a-conclusion: We cannot know if there is or is not a god, and this argument is therefore invalid, by attempting to prove something that is impossible to prove. Therefore we must choose whether to take a leap of faith and believe in god, or try to find contrary scientific observations that argue for the lack of a god.

I literally do not know how to be any clearer than that.

[Human]

Of all the arguments for god which can be neatly expressed as syllogisms, this is one of the more effective. What do you think?

1. Some limited, changing beings exist.
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being, because an infinite regress of causes of being would not cause the existence of anything.
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, and one.

wait, why MUST the first cause be infinite, necessary, eternal and one?

[TigerBoy]

Seriously? I just quoted the OP, who wrote, in his argument "The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another. That means everything has a creator. That is where it is written. Right there. "
You didn't quote him then, because that isn't what that statement says.

That statement refers to what we know about reproduction - beings causing other beings to come about. It is this smaller principle which is expanded later in the syllogism.


I'm not arguing that something came from nothing and neither is the OP. I have no idea where you got that from.
That would be from where you said it, in this post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2098343&postcount=8).


An argument with insufficient evidence to support either claim is not one that is logical or rational. Loving the irony of insisting I do not understand logic. What were you saying about ad hominem? Real cute.
Stating an observation of demonstrated fact is not an ad hominem attack. You have just again demonstrated your lack of understanding as explained above. I am sorry that offends you.

You are clearly not understanding a word I've said. For one, god as we understand it means a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, absolute, eternal, one etc etc etc.
You seem to have missed the point my previous question about this phrase "god as we understand it". You are - fallaciously - making assumptions about god, and about what I understand by god.


As for your second misunderstanding, my point was that another creator, or god as the pandeists understand it, would cease to exist (according to you, as you wouldn't not consider the matter that was once god, still god, as you mentioned numerous and irrelevant times).

I understood what you said, if you read what I actually wrote I am challenging you to prove why it has to be the way you say.


Do you know what ad hominem is?
Sufficiently to call you out for it in my earlier response to you, so self-evidently 'yes'.

Arguing that my argument is invalid because I said the 'OP's' argument is invalid rather than simply 'the argument' is invalid is nitpicking.
I hate to think what tortuous thought process allowed you to somehow conclude that is the basis for rejecting your argument. To be clear, the issue I have with your argument is primarily with the method. You have engaged in a debate but are not actually debating the terms provided, but creating your own strawman arguments.


My whole point is that we can throw in theories, but that there can be no conclusion. Catching up?
I was trying to point out your fallacious reasoning but evidently that was wasted effort.


You are looking at this from the shallowest of ways.
No, I am looking at what has been said, and not - like you - misunderstanding or making assumptions about what has been said.

They appear to refute because men lack the power to keep their eyes at once upon what is the same and what is different.
-Aristotle, "On Sophistical Refutations"


This is talking about a possible creator, something that may or may not have created everything. That means we are talking about the very very basics of what is, as after The Creation was the big bang, when everything was in its very basic form.
And yet if we humour the creationists and stipulate a god created the big bang, he existed (as others have noted now in this thread) outside of the normal rules, thus if a creator existed it would be consistent that he existed after everything else ceased. Since we don't understand how that be we - or you - cannot claim to have knowledge of how he couldn't be eternal.


Not writing in big shiny letters 'FLAW IN LOGIC NUMBER ONE,' does not mean I have not addressed the flaws in the logic. But I'll humor you.
I already explained how you haven't addressed the flaws: to reiterate, you have not linked your points to the specific statements of the original post.

FLAW IN LOGIC NUMBER ONE: I am addressing the argument as a whole before pinpointing exactly where within the argument there are flaws. The argument itself is flawed in assuming that we can know whether there is a creator or not. As a creator is something we cannot see or measure in any scientific fashion, it cannot be proven to exist. For the same reason, we cannot prove that it does not exist. END OF FLAW NUMBER ONE.
Flaw 1 in your flaw - the argument is not assuming, it is giving multiple premises. I already explained this.
Flaw 2 in your flaw - the entire point of the syllogism is to establish that point: stating it is flawed because you don't like what it is claiming is not reason for it being wrong.
Flaw 3 in your flaw - you don't understand logic. The syllogism is valid logic (or perhaps not for precise reasons I have argued). Valid logic does not have to be true. It is perfectly possible to make a logical decision and be wrong because your facts are wrong. So it is a flaw on your part to colour this as a flaw in logic.

FLAW IN LOGIC NUMBER TWO: The OP states that "the present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another." This means that everything was created by something else.
Flaw 1 in your flaw - you misunderstand the statement. I can apply to cases such as Rabbit A being created by Rabbits B and C.


Continuing to say that "Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings," or that there was a first cause, contradicts the premise of the original law the argument established,
Flaw 2 - you predicate this on your misunderstanding in Flaw 1

because by saying everything has a creator, it is logically unstable to say later that something does not have a creator. It's that simple. END OF FLAW NUMBER TWO.
Flaw 3 - again, no logically it is fine. It may just be wrong. Wrong doesn't mean illogical.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSION-that's-not-actually-a-conclusion: We cannot know if there is or is not a god, and this argument is therefore invalid, by attempting to prove something that is impossible to prove. Therefore we must choose whether to take a leap of faith and believe in god, or try to find contrary scientific observations that argue for the lack of a god.
You've already included this argument in Flaw 1. If god leapt out of his cloud and poked you, you would know, wouldn't you say?

[CharlieFinley]

I hear you, however that relies on assumptions outside the scope of the syllogism. I'm just saying I don't like the idea. A creator is a creator. :P


Strictly that doesn't matter. If we stipulate that it is possible that the science becomes more sound, or that theories around meteorites introducing primitive life from elsewhere prove viable, then it still points to a flaw in the second premise since it wouldn't encompass that possibility. If a creator was responsible for engendering the science that resulted in life, then the conclusion would still be true while the current version of premise 2 is false, thus the syllogism is logically invalid. That's certainly true. As a syllogism, then, I think it at the very least needs more work. I don't think it's irretrievable, but...

On a side note, there are apparently (http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/lifeform.htm)microbacteria fossils dated to be 3.5 billion years old, so that would appear to contradict your statement. And the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Ah, crap. I see what I did. That's what I get for writing a response without finishing the book I'm working out of. We see that life emerged much sooner after the conditions became acceptable than we would expect to see, statistically. This includes things like the proper temperature, the presence of liquid water... there simply wasn't enough time for life to evolve by chance. Now, panspermia is certainly a workable alternative, but I'd rather not get into that right now.

wait, why MUST the first cause be infinite, necessary, eternal and one?

I'm not too sure about the "one" bit, but infinite is at the very least a side-effect of being eternal, and the first Cause must be eternal because otherwise it would simply be another part of the infinite regress of causes that itself causes nothing.


Double Posts Merged. -StoppingTime

[Antisthenes]

I was with you until number 5. You are making assumptions that don't necessarily have to be true.

That would not be an assumption. #5 is the conclusion of the argument. You don't assume conclusions, you derive them. An assumption in terms of arguments is that which is used to derive other items. This is just a fact of arguments.

For example, if I assume an assumption, let's call it A, I cannot end on this note in argument. I must then derive something from A or it is not an assumption by necessity.


Is this Thomas Aquinas?

My first reaction to this is that there are alternate scenarios that may or may not be covered by this broad definition of "caused by another", some of which would then render the syllogism invalid and step 5 unsound.

Does "caused by another" include "caused by the presence of another" or "caused by the conscious actions of another"?

Just to clarify for you, a syllogism in reasoning is specifically a 2 premised, one conclusion argument. The argument presented would not be considered a syllogism exactly, it would just be considered an argument of 4 premises.

An example of a syllogism:

1. If A then B.
2. A.
____
3. Therefore, B.

Now, as for the second part of the highlighted bit:

"and step 5 unsound"

A single proposition within an argument is not able to be unsound by necessity of what it means to be unsound in argument. To be unsound only applies to the arguments themselves and is not a trait of individual propositions within them. We cannot speak of individual propositions being unsound as this would make no sense by what it means to be unsound. However, if you'd like to define for us some new manner of unsoundness and explain how it works, I'm all ears. Unfortunately, though, in terms of arguments and reasoning, which is what we're dealing with, your claim of unsoundness is incorrect where it sits.

[TigerBoy]

Just to clarify for you, a syllogism in reasoning is specifically a 2 premised, one conclusion argument. The argument presented would not be considered a syllogism exactly, it would just be considered an argument of 4 premises.

Then you appear not to have heard of polysyllogisms (also known as multi-premise syllogisms) or sorites, which are considered types of syllogism.


A single proposition within an argument is not able to be unsound by necessity of what it means to be unsound in argument. To be unsound only applies to the arguments themselves and is not a trait of individual propositions within them.
Of course, and the person I was speaking to evidently managed to understand that I was carelessly using it as a reference to the argument entire or I'm sure would have clarified that point at the time.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I already disagreed with number 1. Thomas Aquinas is like the stupid idiot who created the omega point theory in 2007 or 2008. They use what MOST don't know against them.
Fortunately, I have an explanation for the entire universe. It's called the Big Bang theory. Everyone must know it by now, the most popular explanation with scientists. Life? Terraformation. Caused by what? Water. From where? Likely the big bangs metaphorical shrapnel, the elemental part. If you actually thought for longer than a few minutes, this stately would be valid to nearly everyone, except devout theists.

[CharlieFinley]

I already disagreed with number 1. Thomas Aquinas is like the stupid idiot who created the omega point theory in 2007 or 2008. They use what MOST don't know against them.
Fortunately, I have an explanation for the entire universe. It's called the Big Bang theory. Everyone must know it by now, the most popular explanation with scientists. Life? Terraformation. Caused by what? Water. From where? Likely the big bangs metaphorical shrapnel, the elemental part. If you actually thought for longer than a few minutes, this stately would be valid to nearly everyone, except devout theists.

As a theist, I have perfect confidence that the Big Bang occurred. Also, are you seriously saying you don't think some limited, changing beings exist?