How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Cephus]

I've given up arguing with religious nutjobs regarding their religious belief. Now whenever they try to present their nonsensical argument as an undeniable fact, I just nod and smile then give them a "Yeah?" or "I see" like I'd do to a kid telling me about their imaginary adventures.

And that would be all well and good if these religious delusional idiots didn't have a lot of political power to try to force their beliefs on everyone.  Patting these morons on the head and telling them to play in traffic unfortunately doesn't solve the problem.

[Ronkonkoma]

Cool story. Still missing the point. Also, given that the story of TGS is only mentioned in Luke, and not in the first/oldest couple of gospels (Matt and Mark) nor in the biggest/last collection of Jesus-stories (John), it's questionable whether such a thing happened at all, or was a tale written by the moralist who signed it "Luke", and attributed to the life of Jesus... but that's a side-issue.

There are three people in the story who encounter the mugged man: 1) a priest, 2) a Levite, and 3) the Samaritan. Priests were, of course, those called into the ministry and were considered holy, even as we consider them so today, and interpreters/enforcers of the divine will through theocratic law. The Levites were the holiest of the tribes, dedicated to religious duties and secular ones related to those duties, and in short were a sort of "theologian class" that were considered holy and "called by God". We might refer to Deacons of the protestant churches in the same way, today. On the contrary, the Samaritans were considered (by racist Judeans) to be almost sub-human, animalistic and immoral, the way a member of the Confederate States of America might have seen a slave. Jesus did not pick these three groups by accident in the tale.

He was asked how a person would inherit eternal life (be saved), in Christian parlance. He answered (via the guy questioning him) that the solution was to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

The question was put to him, "but who is my brother?", and he pointed out that it is not our nature, not our race, not our class that makes us brothers, but our choice of moral action. He chose the most hated, subhuman, immoral (according to the values of that religion and place and time) group by which to give this example.

In other words, it is a story against racism, it destroys the idea that a person of one race or class or religion is inherently more moral than another, and it defines "a brotherhood of man" (as John Lennon put it).

Remember how we got onto this discussion?

---

Every event is statistically improbable, sure, but some things are made more probable than others by our values. It is our responsibility as human beings to live according to our values. Values are an important tool for our brain, which is the organ of purpose. Much like the liver is producing bile, so the brain is producing a purpose to live for. Without that we will literally die (through direct or indirect suicide).

Ideas are very important because they affect behavior and behavior affects our material existence. The "just right" argument is based on science and is really not beyond our capacity to understand. In fact, the sheer number of these conditions needed for life might be vastly understated for all we know, considering the fact that they multiply when we come to speaking about human life.

You can't reduce human existence to the material and strictly empiric, because that will undermine freedom, responsibility and human dignity, and lead to many more holocausts and breeches in human rights. That was my point I tried to express, doctor.

---

So I wanted you to see what your actual  Ultimate Moral Lawgiver had to say about it. He agrees with one of the most fundamental of Secular Humanist moral concepts, which is that when you treat all human beings as your brethren, you are living up to the highest moral code, and the above-listed problems become impossible. But of course Secular Humanists didn't arrive at this idea by saying, "Hey, Jesus was pretty smart" (actually, I suppose it'd be Buddha or one of the other Golden Rule originators older than the New Testament), we arrived at it by seeing the horrors associated with racism, nationalism, greed, sexism, and every other form of "that guy is not my brother" that is required for atrocities to be committed.

So I'll leave you with the words of John Lennon, beneath this hide tag:

---

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You, you may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will live as one

---

I'm happy you agree with that, and hope that will happen one day, except for no heaven and no religion. But lets see the way things are now. 

We learn about history and how the Turks invaded the Balkan peninsula, destroyed churches and set up gigantic mosques facing the walls of Vienna. We learn about ancient battles and turning points, and saw our own brute potential to do massive evil. And we wonder who we are to have done that. And we feel guilt to the point of striving towards an ideal Europe not according to Jesus Christ at all, but according to John Lennon. The European constitution is a massive document of hundreds of pages. Never once does it mention Christianity when defining European identity. Instead, they moved towards a border free dream of utopia at the cost of national and religious identity. 

There are problems. Something had to replace those things. In the former Yugoslavia, that was the personal cult of Marshall Tito, and the dream of Communist Utopia. All religious and ethnic differences were pressed. Lets just see how that turned out at the death of Tito with the implosion of the country along ethnic and religious divides. 

In the modern European union the thing to replace religious and national identity was consumerism. Reproduction was cut off from sex, and universal contraception and the occasional abortion in case it failed, loosened boundaries of marriage, smaller and smaller families, and children growing up in families with absent caregivers. This problem intesified to the point of governments having to give monetary incentive to large families. Either that, or promote immigration to maintain the economy, to have a young labor force, and feed the hunger of the German companies for cheap labor. But the new generation of immigrants are generally not well integrated. The second generation of immigrants (the children of the first generation) are especially dissatisfied, not few are even going to fight for ISIS. 

Why did they not integrate? Is it because of racism, and the color of their skin? Is it because of their differing customs? Or is it because having been uprooted from their old culture, they are ready to integrate into the new, but the new has nothing to offer them any more other than consumerism. They feel unfed by this consumerism. They feel they should have been fed, but they still remain hungry and dissatisfied. As a response, they are prone to returning to the old cultures of their parents, only in a more radicalized way. The new wave of Islamic radicalism is completely cut off from their traditional roots, but they see it as a new alternative to the consumerism that has not made them well, only sicker. 

The reality is that there is religion, and there will be as long as we are human. There is national identity, just as people need a solid cultural base to thrive. How will the Europeans help the wave of migrants from Syria if they are unsure about their own identity? 

We have governments and borders to keep from anarchy. Before Chrsitianity, civilizations used to maintain order based on scapegoating, even to the point of human sacrifice. If there is no religion to counter it, or of religion is not taught based on the tradition of the ages, if there is no culture to feed them, my fear is that people will resort to anarchy. And that is dangerous because we can destroy the world at the push of a button.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The premise is not everything needs a cause. The premise is everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

It's not only proven to be a valid argument, but a sound argument.

It presupposes a theory of causality that most moderns reject. You have to address that first.

[Rhondazvous]

Why bother with complex explanations on how we know so little about the universe that we can't make too broad assumptions when you can simply counter it with some really simple questions?

The argument from causation, first cause or, as it is frequently called by sophisticated theologians, the cosmological argument, usually consists in the following two premises and conclusion:

1 - Everything that exists has or needs a cause

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - Therefore, the universe needs a cause

From the conclusion theists usually deduce that the only possible cause to the universe and all existence is god, given the amount of supernatural and unimaginable power required to create or just set in motion the events that lead to the creation of life, matter and our beautiful ability to breathe oxygen.

Here's how to refute it without needing to know any science at all:

Atheist asks ---> If everything that exists has or needs a cause, then god, whichever we are talking about, needs a cause as well. What caused god?

Theists replies --> God doesn't need a cause because he was always there, he is infinite, timeless, and exists outside of time and space - Hence only him could have caused the events that lead to the creation of the universe as we know it

Atheist asks - Then apparently not everything needs a cause, so why does the universe need one if god doesn't? I rest my case (And premise 1 is false)


TL;DR -----> If god doesn't need a cause then why the fuck does the universe need one? Answer - Special pleading.

1. I am most comfortable when I am asleep.
2. When I am asleep my bed is not made up

3. Therefore, I am most comfortable when my bed is not made up.

If god existed in any meaningful way, he would not need theists to present an argument. He would present himself.

The sine qua non of god is god.

[Losty]

The premise is not everything needs a cause. The premise is everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

It's not only proven to be a valid argument, but a sound argument.

Has everything that exists begun to exist, though? Can you prove it?

Hint:
The answer is either "no", in which case you cannot use the argument to claim the universe has a creator.
Or it is "yes", in which place you will have proven that if a god exists it must have a cause.

[Rational AKD]

1 - Everything that exists has or needs a cause

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - Therefore, the universe needs a cause

I would say this is simply a bad version of the argument... but it reeks terribly of editing. why does the first premise state 'everything that exists has a cause' while the second premise says 'the universe began to exist'? why would you need to word it that way in light of the first premise? the wording of the premises are inconsistent... which can only lead me to believe you edited the first premise to make it more objectionable. i'm sure you won't admit to doing that since that would indeed be very dishonest of you... but i'll leave it for everyone else to decide why your premise wordings are inconsistent.

the actual wording of premise 1 of the KCA should be 'everything that begins to exist has a cause.' so there's really no special pleading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

I'm happy you agree with that, and hope that will happen one day, except for no heaven and no religion. But lets see the way things are now. 

We learn about history and how the Turks invaded the Balkan peninsula, destroyed churches and set up gigantic mosques facing the walls of Vienna. We learn about ancient battles and turning points, and saw our own brute potential to do massive evil. And we wonder who we are to have done that. And we feel guilt to the point of striving towards an ideal Europe not according to Jesus Christ at all, but according to John Lennon. The European constitution is a massive document of hundreds of pages. Never once does it mention Christianity when defining European identity. Instead, they moved towards a border free dream of utopia at the cost of national and religious identity. 

There are problems. Something had to replace those things. In the former Yugoslavia, that was the personal cult of Marshall Tito, and the dream of Communist Utopia. All religious and ethnic differences were pressed. Lets just see how that turned out at the death of Tito with the implosion of the country along ethnic and religious divides. 

In the modern European union the thing to replace religious and national identity was consumerism. Reproduction was cut off from sex, and universal contraception and the occasional abortion in case it failed, loosened boundaries of marriage, smaller and smaller families, and children growing up in families with absent caregivers. This problem intesified to the point of governments having to give monetary incentive to large families. Either that, or promote immigration to maintain the economy, to have a young labor force, and feed the hunger of the German companies for cheap labor. But the new generation of immigrants are generally not well integrated. The second generation of immigrants (the children of the first generation) are especially dissatisfied, not few are even going to fight for ISIS. 

Why did they not integrate? Is it because of racism, and the color of their skin? Is it because of their differing customs? Or is it because having been uprooted from their old culture, they are ready to integrate into the new, but the new has nothing to offer them any more other than consumerism. They feel unfed by this consumerism. They feel they should have been fed, but they still remain hungry and dissatisfied. As a response, they are prone to returning to the old cultures of their parents, only in a more radicalized way. The new wave of Islamic radicalism is completely cut off from their traditional roots, but they see it as a new alternative to the consumerism that has not made them well, only sicker. 

The reality is that there is religion, and there will be as long as we are human. There is national identity, just as people need a solid cultural base to thrive. How will the Europeans help the wave of migrants from Syria if they are unsure about their own identity? 

We have governments and borders to keep from anarchy. Before Chrsitianity, civilizations used to maintain order based on scapegoating, even to the point of human sacrifice. If there is no religion to counter it, or of religion is not taught based on the tradition of the ages, if there is no culture to feed them, my fear is that people will resort to anarchy. And that is dangerous because we can destroy the world at the push of a button.

---

Such a dim view of humanity. Actually, from most of what I have read about the issues of European immigrants being dissatisfied, it appears to stem from an underlying racism similar to that in the United States (with our southern border), in that Europeans seem to be okay with the immigrants only so long as they come in and do the bottom-of-the-barrel jobs, rather than offering the full treatment that Europeans enjoy, as seen in France for instance.

There is also the problem if resistance to cultural assimilation by the immigrants, especially in the face of alienating prejudices by the majority against them, in which they form enclaves of relative poverty and social isolation, fertile ground for extremists to tell them that their identity is not to be found in becoming Europeans but in their religious heritage. I don't think it's a matter of feeling unfed by the "consumerist" culture, as you put it, but of being unwelcome.

The issues with Tito and that form of communism are, I think, wholly unrelated to the discussion here. I consider communism to be a religious ideology that simply has no deity (except the "cult of personality" of the leaders pushing it), in the same way that Taoism and Buddhism are godless religions (except they are, ideally, peaceful at their roots, whereas communism begins with the principle of an inherent conflict between the workers and the owners).

I wholly agree with you that the issue for all humanity is that we are often too unwilling to give up our old, tribalist identities, and that these identities (be they religious or not) can at their worst cause hatred and destruction. But I disagree in the strongest possible terms with your conclusion that "If there is no religion to counter it, or of religion is not taught based on the tradition of the ages, if there is no culture to feed them, my fear is that people will resort to anarchy."  Religious identities that override the ties of brotherhood, as between the Christian Croatians and the Muslim Serbs (in this case, the Christians were the aggressors), are as often as not the root cause of the fracturing of humanity. Though Europe is increasingly secular in its population, the countries that make up the EU almost all have an official Christian state religion, leading to increased feelings of alienation by the immigrants who have other religious affiliations. It is one of the reasons we atheists tend to object so stringently to objects and symbols of official state religious entanglement; we understand well the feeling of alienation that these symbols represent, and the dangers of church-state entanglement making a majority group feel entitled or superior.

As a former environmental scientist, I certainly agree that economies which are based on a requirement of perpetual growth in population are unsustainable for a number of reasons, but a discussion of economics goes well beyond the scope of this exchange. It suffices to say that I don't agree that "loosening of family bonds" has the impact you seem to be implying. This argument is often made in the United States by our religious leaders, but it is often based on incorrectly-remembered data about an idyllic past that simply did not exist. A great book on the subject, if you are interested, is The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz.

[Rhondazvous]

I've given up arguing with religious nutjobs regarding their religious belief. Now whenever they try to present their nonsensical argument as an undeniable fact, I just nod and smile then give them a "Yeah?" or "I see" like I'd do to a kid telling me about their imaginary adventures.

And that would be all well and good if these religious delusional idiots didn't have a lot of political power to try to force their beliefs on everyone.  Patting these morons on the head and telling them to play in traffic unfortunately doesn't solve the problem.

Freedom is like water. We never miss it until the well runs dry.

It will never happen here.

The shame of the 20th century will not be the clamor of the bad people but the silence of the good people

So what will the doom of the 21st century be if we fail to learn the lessons of a past that wasn't that long ago?

[Mystic]

The premise is not everything needs a cause. The premise is everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

It's not only proven to be a valid argument, but a sound argument.

Has everything that exists begun to exist, though? Can you prove it?

Hint:
The answer is either "no", in which case you cannot use the argument to claim the universe has a creator.
Or it is "yes", in which place you will have proven that if a god exists it must have a cause.

Everything other then an eternal timeless being began to exist. I've shown this in other threads.  

Here is an argument:

Every point of time began to exist. 
The whole of time consists of every point of time.
Therefore the whole of time began to exist.

Think about it. There is no point in time that didn't come to being. It all didn't exist. Therefore to imagine an infinite past, even if it's true, would still need to begin to exist (which is paradoxical). 

To say a material thing caused time to exist makes no sense, it had to be a supernatural magical being that has power to bring such a reality into being, something that can create time, but itself is beyond it.

If you were just to think about the flow of time, you will see, everything is constantly being created and maintained. What is creating time? Time just exists? It surely demonstrates a power beyond.

[Losty]

Has everything that exists begun to exist, though? Can you prove it?

Hint:
The answer is either "no", in which case you cannot use the argument to claim the universe has a creator.
Or it is "yes", in which place you will have proven that if a god exists it must have a cause.

Everything other then an eternal timeless being began to exist. I've shown this in other threads.  

How do you know the universe itself is not an eternal timeless being?