RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 19, 2015 at 9:09 pm
(September 19, 2015 at 4:24 pm)Losty Wrote:(July 23, 2015 at 5:37 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.