26 May, 02:00PM in sunny Singapore!

The case for the 1st cause

Subscribe to The case for the 1st cause 118 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • Moderator
    despondent's Avatar
    2,223 posts since Feb '06
    • everyone acknowledges tat the universe came into existence by some apparent reason...in other words, there is a 1st cause to the universe...this thread discusses our views on wad the 1st cause is and why its the 1st cause and not sth else...the 2 most common camps are 1) the creator God and 2) the big bang...

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by despondent:

      everyone acknowledges tat the universe came into existence by some apparent reason...in other words, there is a 1st cause to the universe...this thread discusses our views on wad the 1st cause is and why its the 1st cause and not sth else...the 2 most common camps are 1) the creator God and 2) the big bang...

      If I may refine it further, the issue is that the universe must have a cause because it has a beginning. The Big Bang is a theory to explain the phenomena of the expansion of the universe from a singularity event in the distant past. But this initial singularity event itself begs a cause, because "bangs" don't just happen without a cause.

      The argument then is that either God made the universe, or the universe made itself, or nothing made the universe. I think the last two options are not very attractive at all. But perhaps someone might have another view to avoid the God alternative?

    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      If I may refine it further, the issue is that the universe must have a cause because it has a beginning. The Big Bang is a theory to explain the phenomena of the expansion of the universe from a singularity event in the distant past. But this initial singularity event itself begs a cause, because "bangs" don't just happen without a cause.

      The argument then is that either God made the universe, or the universe made itself, or nothing made the universe. I think the last two options are not very attractive at all. But perhaps someone might have another view to avoid the God alternative?

      One of the new ideas to avoid having to deal with a divine cause for the universe is to invoke the idea of multiverses which some have claimed to have mathematical and theoretical support. In other words, there are millions or perhaps billions of universes out there and our universe just happened to be the lucky one to contain life. The analogy usually given is that of the lottery, that even though it is highly improbable someone will win the lottery.

      But then here's where I think the double standard comes into play. Atheists would argue that even though it is so improbable yet it must have been so that it happened at least once, since our universe exists, otherwise we won't be here to talk about it. Yet they would deny that similar argument for God, saying that God is so improbable that therefore He does not exist. So on one hand the improbable multiverse scenario means it happened, but the improbable God scenario means no God.

  • Moderator
    despondent's Avatar
    2,223 posts since Feb '06
  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by despondent:

      cos to them God is smaller than the universe?

      Well, it's not about the size. To them, there is no God to speak of. He cannot exists because nature is all there is. His existence is entirely unnecessary because only naturalistic answers are allowed, even if it such answers do not make sense.

      As evolutionist Richard Lewontin said. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

  • Aneslayer's Avatar
    1,511 posts since May '11
    • God = 1st cause. Of which one would ask "What comes before that?" God's existence is before the existence of time. No time, no before or after.

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      God = 1st cause. Of which one would ask "What comes before that?" God's existence is before the existence of time. No time, no before or after.


      You forgot that before there was time to speak of, God dwells in eternity. You don't speak of time in timeless eternity. In any case, any difficulty in understanding causation and time should not be confused with or translate to a denial of a cause for the universe. To deny cause and effect is to make a bigger blunder. See also http://standtherefore.com/blog/q-a-no-time-for-a-first-cause/

       

       

      Edited by BroInChrist 25 Jul `12, 9:06AM
  • Aneslayer's Avatar
    1,511 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:


      You forgot that before there was time to speak of, God dwells in eternity. You don't speak of time in timeless eternity. In any case, any difficulty in understanding causation and time should not be confused with or translate to a denial of a cause for the universe. To deny cause and effect is to make a bigger blunder. See also http://standtherefore.com/blog/q-a-no-time-for-a-first-cause/

       


      I think you were agreeing with me in your own way.

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:


      I think you were agreeing with me in your own way.

      So what is your view? Got case? No case? Gone case?

  • Moderator
    despondent's Avatar
    2,223 posts since Feb '06
  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by despondent:

      BIC,

      aneslayer is acknowledging that God is the 1st cause and he is uncaused...

      Acknowledging as in just recognising that this is what Christians believe, or ishe acknowledging that the argument itself is sound? 

  • Jacky Woo's Avatar
    1,543 posts since Nov '10
    • What 1st cause or second cause or third cause and so forth. does it explain anything if at all? no it doesnt. how can it comes down to causal and effect when something that does not exists is beyond me.

      maybe you should take a listen to Lawrence Krauss: "A Universe From Nothing" ,

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Jacky Woo:

      What 1st cause or second cause or third cause and so forth. does it explain anything if at all? no it doesnt. how can it comes down to causal and effect when something that does not exists is beyond me.

      maybe you should take a listen to Lawrence Krauss: "A Universe From Nothing" ,

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0


      Yeah right, nothing caused everything. Sounds just about right! Duh.

      It seems then that for the atheist it all boils down to nothing. No wonder Dawkins said that there is no purpose or meaning in life but pitiless indifference. Makes me wonder why atheists bother to get up and do anything at all. It only shows that atheism is a false worldview that even the atheist does not live by.

  • Jacky Woo's Avatar
    1,543 posts since Nov '10
    • christians say 1st cause or creationism, whatever, doesnt explain how the world or universes works. it explains nothing, so why bother explaining in the first place.

      science does attempt to explain how the universe came about, galaxies, milky way, expanding universe, dark matter, black holes etc. god created the world and the universe..........pls give me a break........

  • Aneslayer's Avatar
    1,511 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      Acknowledging as in just recognising that this is what Christians believe, or ishe acknowledging that the argument itself is sound? 

      I do not know what Christians believe. I did not acknowledge any argument but my own.

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Jacky Woo:

      christians say 1st cause or creationism, whatever, doesnt explain how the world or universes works. it explains nothing, so why bother explaining in the first place.

      science does attempt to explain how the universe came about, galaxies, milky way, expanding universe, dark matter, black holes etc. god created the world and the universe..........pls give me a break........

      How the universe works is something that scientists do. But you are confusing it with the issue of what or who caused the universe to exist.

      How the universe come about is a really a HISTORICAL question, not a scientific one.

    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      I do not know what Christians believe. I did not acknowledge any argument but my own.

      I know you do not know what Christians believe. God knows how often I had to fill in on your ignorance of the faith.

  • Aneslayer's Avatar
    1,511 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      I know you do not know what Christians believe. God knows how often I had to fill in on your ignorance of the faith.

      You know what the Christians believe? Share.

      You know what I don't know? Share.

      Edited by Aneslayer 31 Jul `12, 5:22PM
  • Jocelyntxh's Avatar
    253 posts since Jul '12
  • White Dust's Avatar
    42 posts since Jun '12
  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      You know what the Christians believe? Share.

      You know what I don't know? Share.

      I have shared much already on what Christians believe in my postings as they are in the context of correcting the ignorance and erroneous views that atheists have.

      I only know what you don't know when you make your postings that speak of what you know but actually don't know.

    • Originally posted by White Dust:

      Cool beans. What did I miss?

      Welcome back! You have a fair bit of catching up to do if you wish to know what has transpired since your last visit. Let's pick up where we left off.

  • Jacky Woo's Avatar
    1,543 posts since Nov '10
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      Welcome back! You have a fair bit of catching up to do if you wish to know what has transpired since your last visit. Let's pick up where we left off.

      dun waste time with him.

      Edited by Jacky Woo 01 Aug `12, 10:59AM
  • Aneslayer's Avatar
    1,511 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      I have shared much already on what Christians believe in my postings as they are in the context of correcting the ignorance and erroneous views that atheists have.

      I only know what you don't know when you make your postings that speak of what you know but actually don't know.

      "I have shared much already on what Christians believe in my postings as they are in the context of correcting the ignorance and erroneous views that atheists have."

      Does that represent what the Christians believe? This correcting of ignorance and erroneous? Atheist only?

      "I only know what you don't know when you make your postings that speak of what you know but actually don't know."

      What did you fill in on ignorance? Unsolicited opinions or objective truths?

      Edited by Aneslayer 01 Aug `12, 11:36AM
  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      "I have shared much already on what Christians believe in my postings as they are in the context of correcting the ignorance and erroneous views that atheists have."

      Does that represent what the Christians believe? This correcting of ignorance and erroneous? Atheist only?

      "I only know what you don't know when you make your postings that speak of what you know but actually don't know."

      What did you fill in on ignorance? Unsolicited opinions or objective truths?

      What I shared is what Christians believe as taught in the Bible and held to by the early church. Filling on your ignorance is very much truths found in the Bible, or based on the Bible.

Please Login or Signup to reply.