(February 25, 2015 at 9:16 am)ChadWooters Wrote:(February 25, 2015 at 4:11 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote: The first cause could be an universe that has different laws than our universe; thus, that universe doesn't need a cause nor an explanation like things in this universe. Other natural laws are possible.
The universe cannot be a first (or more accurately primary) cause since it is already a particular contingent thing that changes. By way of contrast, the first cause must be non-contingent and unchanging.
(February 25, 2015 at 4:48 am)Alex K Wrote: ...the first cause is simply not necessary, because it isn't really defined and it doesn't solve anything imnshoThe first cause argument resolved the tension between change and constancy and as such paved the way to the solution to the problem of universals. You don't know what you are opining about.
Explain the tension between constancy and change.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
