We don't know if our reality had a cause or not. Maybe it's eternal. Maybe it isn't, but had no external cause. We don't know. We have no current way of finding out. Without evidence, or anything to test, we're just speculating.

What I can say is that if there is a first cause, don't worry about it. It makes no practical difference to anything.

https://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

(September 23, 2016 at 9:49 am)_Velvet_ Wrote: But I still find it very hard to believe that the universe (or the quantum fluctuations that might have caused the big bang, or whatever you want it to be your first cause) be an uncaused cause, unless it is something different from everything we know (maybe this is argument from incredulity, but to me it really wouldn't make any sense to have a natural uncaused first cause while everything else has a cause prior, including time itself, so the only way to stop the regression of causes its coming to a "special" cause)

Yes.


Also, the cosmological argument is self-defeating. If a god can exist without a prior cause, then why can't the universe?

(September 23, 2016 at 10:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: How do you bridge the gap, conceptually, between a first cause and a god?

I don't, I just acknowledge that this cause might be some kind of god, and I feel it would make most sense if it were, just because if it was a natural phenomena it would make sense if it was also caused.

---

Thanks everyone for the feedback = ]

Again, "supernatural" is not a well-defined term.

I have a video about that too, if you're interested

(September 23, 2016 at 12:29 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Also, the cosmological argument is self-defeating. If a god can exist without a prior cause, then why can't the universe?

This is one of the classic refutations that I just don't think it holds.

A god could come to existance without a prior cause because he would be able to do godlike shit like creating himself or some other magical and non-sensical stuff that natural things just can't do (or at least wouldn't be reasonable to expect they would)

While an universe coming into existance without a prior cause doesn't really make sense (not saying its impossible but I just don't think it would make any sense for it do suddenly come into existance)

(September 23, 2016 at 12:43 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 12:29 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Also, the cosmological argument is self-defeating. If a god can exist without a prior cause, then why can't the universe?

This is one of the classic refutations that I just don't think it holds.

A god could come to existance without a prior cause because he would be able to do godlike shit like creating himself or some other magical and non-sensical stuff that natural things just can't do (or at least wouldn't be reasonable to expect they would)

While an universe coming into existance without a prior cause doesn't really make sense (not saying its impossible but I just don't think it would make any sense for it do suddenly come into existance)

Who said it suddenly came into existence?

Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. Even if that's the case, making sense to us isn't a requirement for truth.

(September 23, 2016 at 11:37 am)Faith No More Wrote: If an uncaused universe causes you trouble, why wouldn't an uncaused conscious entity with magical powers cause you that same trouble?

Remember, the cosmological argument started out as a blatant attempt at special pleading only to have an ad hoc revision added later to avoid that.  That's your first indication that something is amiss.

Also, the cosmological argument takes what is a temporal principle, i.e. all effects must be preceded in time by a cause, and attempts to apply that to when time does not exist.  How can you safely apply the principle of cause and effect when there literally is no space-time for a cause to precede its effect?

1: because this first cause, whatever it might be doesn't need to follow or rules of causation because it is somehow different, the way it is from outside our dimension of time already makes it more plausible to me for it to exist on a uncaused way.

2: Yes i'm aware, and i'm completely against using the cosmological argument as a theist argument as this would be just stupid, but instead I use it to see it would make a lot of sense for us to have a) infinite regression of causation b) a first cause that its somehow special in a sense that it would be from outside of causation rule.

3: It would have be some sort of "cause from outside of time", the first cause its different from everything else exactly in that, it is the phenomena started time and started the causation chain.

(September 23, 2016 at 12:43 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 12:29 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Also, the cosmological argument is self-defeating. If a god can exist without a prior cause, then why can't the universe?

This is one of the classic refutations that I just don't think it holds.

A god could come to existance without a prior cause because he would be able to do godlike shit like creating himself or some other magical and non-sensical stuff that natural things just can't do (or at least wouldn't be reasonable to expect they would)

You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.

Quote:While an universe coming into existance without a prior cause doesn't really make sense (not saying its impossible but I just don't think it would make any sense for it do suddenly come into existance)

You're thinking of the origins of the universe in linear terms, in terms you as a resident of the universe naturally gravitate to. That you think of a god as inherently temporal (engaging in self-creation etc.) speaks to this. There was no 'prior' to the universe, the universe didn't pop out of some previous state of non-existence because non-existence doesn't exist.
The laws of cause and effect apply to the universe, they don't apply to nothingness because nothing applies to nothingness because nothing doesn't exist.
If you were to travel back in time, the big bang is as far as you could ever possibly go.

(September 23, 2016 at 1:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. Even if that's the case, making sense to us isn't a requirement for truth.

I will have to think about that.

Do we have examples of things that are truth but make no sense?