(March 7, 2012 at 7:02 pm)Chuck Wrote: So how did the first point come into being?

It didn't come into being. It's the first point of existence, then time was brought forth. There was no before the first point by definition. The universe could said to have been the first point, but I don't see how time could've been brought into being by non-living entities. Surely matter doesn't have that ability.

Quote:And in what way this this first point shown to be worth praying to?

The first cause argument doesn't tell much of the First Cause other then it is uncaused and always existed and was timeless. Then other arguments tell you more like it has will since non-living entities can't just bring out existence from nothing or create time....

Does it prove he should be prayed to? No. Does it prove he is worthy of Worship? No.

There is other arguments for that, first cause argument proves a Personal Creator, it doesn't do much of telling us whether it's Perfect or Loving or anything like that.

In other words you've arbitrarily defined a temporaily unfalsifiable concept and asserted that it be god, without reference to any of the attributes the word "god" is normally taken to imply; while failing to show that, vene if your concept were true in some sense of the word, it has any implications that ought to be worth taken seriously.

(March 7, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Chuck Wrote: In other words you've arbitrarily defined a temporaily unfalsifiable concept and asserted that it be god, without reference to any of the attributes the word "god" is normally taken to imply; while failing to show that, vene if your concept were true in some sense of the word, it has any implications that ought to be worth taken seriously

Non-sequitor.

Try harder to follow:

All you are doing is assuming there is nothing causative much beyond the current frontier of knowledge about creation, and call some notional thing just beyond frontier "god", whereever that frontier happen to be at a given moment. I choose to call it the Big Bang, not assume there is nothing causative about it, so I won't be expected to praise it when I say it in the wrong company.

Also, our notion of time and causality is not truly well fleshed out in physics. So extrapolating on what may be at and beyond its origin seems a poor foundation upon which to build a world view.

The first cause argument is only there to established an uncaused cause. Then there is other arguments for what the uncaused cause is. I'm not concluding God out of this argument. It doesn't prove he is Loving or All-Good, etc. That's your assumption that I just rely on this argument to conclude everything about God.

The OP was aimed at saying if it was God, then it would mean this and that. I rebutted that argument.

The first cause argument is also nothing but an argument. No evidence. "We don't know". Let's all say it three times and click our heels.

(March 7, 2012 at 8:49 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The OP was aimed at saying if it was God, then it would mean this and that. I rebutted that argument.

And quite well.

The first cause argument is only there to established an uncaused cause.


However - ONCE we say that there was SOMETHING that was UNCAUSED -
- THE statement that everything has a cause is now void.

So - NO - everything does NOT have to have a beginning - some things - and even possibly MANY things may have ALWAYS existed.

And in that case - no god is needed to start a "beginning"

So God's creation is the beginning of time and before that there is no time. However time is simply a construct we invented to measure things. The point is if God has always existed without explanation or without cause why is it invalid to postulate a non-deity based idea with the same quality? What makes it a unique claim to God?

You have offered up an idea about it but why again is this uncaused cause a deity? If we remove physics from the equation aka pre-universe who is to say that the uncaused cause in a sense is a fluctuation in matter or something else? How does one give personal characteristics or deity based characteristics to this cause? I will freely admit to you that science does not have the answer to the cause of the universe yet.

However arguing that an abstract idea was the cause isn't the same as proving that same idea. I freely admit that it is possible that a deity is the first cause I just don't see how it is possible to prove it. This is why I classify myself as an agnostic atheist. To be honest I don't see major differences between agnostics, deists, and atheists save the fact that two of them believe in some form of deity but don't necessarily have a way to prove it or even care to a lot of times.

Because my water-pik is calling I only have time for a short reply. You are essentially correct. You could say that everything comes out am abyss of infinite possibility, pregnant void, or similar idea without calling it god. The key concept is not what you call that condition, but how well it fits with reality as we live it on a day to day basis. For me the scientific method is very effective for understanding the physical universe. But strictly limiting inquiry to empirical verification of falsifiable hypothesis excludes from considerations all forms of subjective experience, our thoughts, feeling, sensations, how and why we assign meaning and significance to things, etc. In short, positing the existence of the divine expands the definition of reality beyond what is only physical. This allows room for phenomena that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. Sure it's a long tentative slog to go from Cause to "personal Lord and Savior" , but you have to start somewhere.