The Damned

"See if you can follow this argument, which is one form of the cosmological argument.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

The first premise should be uncontroversial. If something begins to exist, it needs a cause of its existence.

The second premise draws upon the findings of science in the last century. We have Einstein’s theory of relativity dictating a beginning to space, time, and matter. We have enormous evidence for the Big Bang, which is the moment the universe exploded into existence about 13. 7 billion years ago. We also have the second law of thermodynamics, which says that the amount of energy available for work is decreasing in the universe – a universe that is decaying cannot be infinitely old because it would have run out of usable energy by now.

To sum up the last paragraph, science seems to have shown that the universe did indeed have a beginning. All of time, space, and matter came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. If that is the case, then the universe needs a cause, and that cause cannot be a part of the universe, because nothing can cause itself to exist.

So what kind of cause are we talking about? Based on the cosmological argument, we can deduce that this cause of the universe has the following properties: self-existence, timelessness, nonspatiality, immateriality, unimaginable power, and personhood.

Self-existence because whatever is the cause of the universe must ultimately be uncaused. If it is not, then the argument just moves back one step. There has to be a first uncaused cause.

This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.

The cause must be incredibly powerful to have created the entire universe and all of its physical laws.

The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.

All of these are attributes of the God of Christianity. That is not to say we have proven the exact God of Christianity exists, but we have certainly made a persuasive argument that a being with some of his qualities exists.

Now that’s something to think about."

What follows is the line by line response I made to this post, slightly revised and added onto:

"“Based on the cosmological argument, we can deduce that this cause of the universe has the following properties: self-existence, timelessness, nonspatiality, immateriality, unimaginable power, and personhood.”

Where did you get this? I see no rational evidence for prescribing these traits to your supposed “cause”. You are arguing for a “god of the gaps” here. You already have an idea of your god, so now you will insert him wherever you can squeeze him into. Please demonstrate to me that the “cause” had those characteristics, and then we can proceed.

“Self-existence because whatever is the cause of the universe must ultimately be uncaused. If it is not, then the argument just moves back one step. There has to be a first uncaused cause.”

Thank you! You have answered your own question. So there is at least one thing that can be uncaused, but it can’t be the universe? Very thin ice here. You posit that the universe requires a cause, but then your god doesn't require one? How can this exemption be demonstrated? Until you prove that the universe cannot be uncaused, you cannot assert that your god was the cause.

“This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.”

So this cause doesn’t exist within the T/S material, yet it can create it? How can it exist completely separate from something, yet actively act upon the same thing?

“The cause must be incredibly powerful to have created the entire universe and all of its physical laws.”

I would agree, and the Big Bang was incredibly powerful, yet you don’t accept that as the only explanation. It would also say that the creation of stars requires incredible power, yet astronomers have witnessed this and demonstrated that it occurs naturally in space, with no observable supernatural influence.

“The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.”

What makes you think there was any choice involved in the creation of the universe? I see no evidence that suggests that any choice was involved, only evidence that the universe was indeed created. In regards to free will, would you say a tree possesses free will? It has the ability to create. In fact, it has the potential to create thousands of other trees, a seemingly powerful ability, yet a tree never makes an active choice to create something. Lightnight striking a tree can cause a massive forest fire, yet did that lightning bold "decide" to create the fire?

“All of these are attributes of the God of Christianity. That is not to say we have proven the exact God of Christianity exists, but we have certainly made a persuasive argument that a being with some of his qualities exists.”

You are right, you have not proven the exact God of Christianity exists, but I would go one step farther and (respectfully) say that you haven’t proven that any god exists!

Additionally, in one of Bill's responses to a comment, he wrote:

“You still need to answer the question: “What caused the universe?” Something had to cause it. Something has to have brought it into being. We know that it isn’t eternal. If not God, then what?”

This committing a fallacy of a positive assertion. You are attempting to turn the burden of proof away from yourself. You are the one making the assertions, and therefore the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your claims are true. “Something had to cause it.” Please show me that this is true. Saying something does not make it so. Also, how do we know that it isn't eternal. It is quite possible the there was never any beginning or cause, at this time we just do not know. When you accept simple, feel-good answers that you want to beleive in, that retards the search for the real truth. If we think we already know, then there is no reason to continue the pursuit.

“Just saying “we don’t know and it’s not worth speculating” is not an answer, but an avoidance of the question.”

I agree that it is something worth speculating, and I have spent much of my adult life doing so. However, I am going to say something that, in my experience, every Christian has trouble with: “I don’t know” as an acceptable answer. However, I can demonstrate that it sure is a lot better than making something up.

Please tell me, Bill, what I ate for breakfast this morning? If you tell me “I don’t know”, are you avoiding the question? Absolutely not, you logically don’t have enough evidence to say what I ate, so “I don’t know” is the ONLY appropriate answer. You could guess, and you could potentially be right, but that is not a reliable way to acheive the truth. However, you could also guess, and you could NEVER be right, because there could be a breakfast food that you’ve never heard of. Guessing only gets you so far, and while I agree that the pursuit is worthwhile (one of the most important pursuits of all), I will not settle for claims and assertions without demonstrable evidence and the use of reason and rational thought.

People have always been afraid to admit that they don’t know, and that’s part of the appeal of religions: they provide answers that people like to hear. Death is a scary thought, but it’s a lot easier to cope with if you believe there is something better waiting after you die. Religion plays upon our fear of ignorance, and in turn gives us answers that we want to hear, at the sacrifice of truth.

One quick last point:

“Theistic philosophers have posited a compelling cause for the universe, God. Until somebody comes up with something better, I think their argument is pretty good.”

If I tell you that unicorns are the cause of cancer, will you believe me until someone can come up with a better explanation of the cause of cancer? All sorts of people have made compelling claims for all sorts of things: UFOs, magic, reading other people’s minds, yet I assume (and hope) that you don’t believe all of those explanations. You have to learn to be ok with not knowing, because that is part of being human. We won’t always know everything that we want to, and it makes no sense to make up answers to satisfy our curiosity, at the cost of truth."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, the First Cause Argument is clearly worth taking a look at, and is a great way to practice your critical thinking skills. One of the problems with theists is that they approach these kind of arguments with a backward attitude. They already believe in their god, and they have an idea about its traits and characteristics. They then look to fit their god into these arguments. My hat goes of to Bill Pratt, who is examining these issues and asking the big questions. However, he is going about it with pre-made assumptions and unproven assertions, which invariably result in a not-so-objective argument. You need to approach these issues objectively and without bias, otherwise the results you find will often be the ones you want to. The human mind makes it easy for us to think that we found found what we were looking for, regardless of whether or not we actually did. To quote the Bible, Matthew 7:7 (NIV) "Seek and you will find". Human beings look for the answers we want, not necessarily the correct and "true" answers. We must remember this aspect of humanity as examine other important issues in our lives to come to a better, more truthful understanding of the world and ourselves.

The single most annoying (and idiotic) thing I witness is when religious arguments are used to affect actions that influence others. Previously, I've discussed referenced using the Bible to to justify inaction in response to global warming, and I believe that these types of actions are the greatest threat that religion poses to humanity. Greater than all the killing, hate, and violence, I believe that religious ignorance is the most detrimental to society of all the negative aspects of religion.

Another example of religious ignorance is when the Bible is used to oppose gay marriage. The quote "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."Leviticus 18:22 (NIV) is often used to assert that God finds homosexuality immoral. However, your holy book has no place whatsoever in the political arena, and therefor cannot be taken into consideration when legislating issues such as gay marriage.

The next route that those opposed to gay marriage often take is the idea that marriage is a religious institution, and therefor is subject to religious arguments. This is a grossly misinformed statement that should convey ignorance the second is it uttered. Marriage requires two people to enter into a legal contract, which makes their relationship acknowledged in the eyes of the government. We do not live in a theocracy. Therefore, marriage is not a religious institution, but a legal one (which transcends religion, at least on paper in our nation). Marriages can have a religious flavor to them if the couple so choses, but marriage is not inherently religious.

Now that is has been established that religious arguments have no weight on the political stage, and that marriage is not a religious institution, we can examine the argument of whether or not homosexual couples should be allowed to get married.

Another common argument against same-sex marriage is that "it is unnatural". My response to this is simple and straightforward, and somewhat obvious: It happens in nature, therefore, it is natural. When I use the term "nature", I do not mean somewhere far out in the woods, away from human influence (although there have been examples of homosexuality in animals). By "nature" I mean occurring (naturally) in the realm of the physical, observable world, humans included. Conversely, even if I were to accept the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural", I would point out that vaccination, plastics, computers, and cars are all unnatural things, so are they immoral as well? Cancer occurs in nature, so does that mean it's unnatural (and therefore wrong) for us to attempt to prevent and cure it?

And finally, the most common argument against gay marriage is the fact that a homosexual couple cannot create children. This idea is based on a common misconception that the only purpose of marriage is to have children. However, this argument is easily defeated, which goes as follows: Marriages contain various legal and practical benefits that have nothing to do with creating or raising children, such as:

1. Filing joint tax returns

2. Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

3. Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

4. Family visitation rights, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison

5. Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation in the end of death.

6. Right to inheritance of property without extensive legal work.

7. Access to “family only” services, including membership into certain clubs or organizations.

As you can see, these benefits relate only to the two people involved in the marriage, having nothing to do with children. It's not like there is a shortage of people in this world. Evolutionarily, homosexuality could help prevent overpopulation. Regardless of any perceived purpose or lack therefor, why not extend the same rights and protections to homosexual couples as we do to heterosexual couples? They are basic legal and practical rights that married couples receive, and for that reason should be extended to homosexual couples as well. Until there is some evidence that the Bible should be taken seriously and as absolutely truth, keep it out of politics.

In addition, more chemists than those in other specialties say they believe in God.