uncaused causes

[Phil]

Once again, someone has brought up the first cause argument (cosmological argument) to me to try to "prove" the existence of god. Specifically they used the Kalam Cosmological Argument made famous by that moron William Lane Craig. Once again as always I pointed out the stupidity of it's initial premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. In general I like to ask them how they know this, have they seen everything that exists? but this time the girl who was using the KCA was actually my physical chemistry lab partner back in the 80s (how she became Christian I was afraid to ask). Since she was obviously educated I didn't want to use such a cute dismissal of her argument so I asked her my oft used backup question which nobody ever answered except to claim that it isn't an uncaused cause (no reason why was ever given). I asked her what causes beta decay. To my surprise she actually gave an answer she said it is caused when the proton/neutron ratio in the nucleus is too high. I agreed but then I told her my but clause (there is always a but). What she said is true of electron emission which is one of three forms of beta decay. There are two other forms, one is positron emission and the other is electron capture. Both of those occur when the proton/neutron ratio in the nucleus is too low. So again I asked her, what causes beta decay. She promised to answer when she sees me next week and before she left she thanked me for posing an interesting question to her. To be honest, I don't expect an answer but I do not expect her to ever try uttering that idiotic argument again.

What are your views on the KCA other than it's wrong and why do you think this argument has been so convincing to so many people?

[Abracadabra]

What are your views on the KCA other than it's wrong

I personally don't see where it should automatically follow that just because something had a 'cause' that 'proves' the existence of a God.

Why would that prove the existence of a God?

Also, we accept quantum randomness and that quantum particles can pop in and out of existence without necessarily having a specific "cause". In fact, one of the theories for the start of the Big Bang is indeed that it all started as a random quantum fluctuation.

So I don't see where cause, or no cause, would have anything at all to do with the question of "god" or "no god".

and why do you think this argument has been so convincing to so many people?

Religious people have a dire need to believe. Therefore they will jump on the bandwagon of any idea that they see religious leaders suggesting or supporting. It's as simple as that.

My question to Christians would be more along the lines of, "Why not then run off and worship Zeus? Or Odin, or Thor, or any number of other gods. Or even mystical religions?"

Those kinds of ideas don't loan support to the biblical picture of God anyway.

[jablomih]

What are your views on the KCA other than it's wrong and why do you think this argument has been so convincing to so many people?

I think people find KCA convincing for the same reason they find any apologetics convincing: because it sounds OK if they don't think it through and they really want it to be valid and provide support for what they already believe. KCA is painfully stupid with the whole "begin to exist" nonsense. What has anyone ever seen begin to exist? The only things I can think of are quantum particles, that don't have known causes.

Its premises sound like common sense, so they sound true, but they are unproven, so they add nothing to knowledge about the supernatural. KCA is just a refinement of the foundation of all proofs for god: if there is anything that science can't explain (or for which you don't like science's explanation) then God did it.

[Forsaken]

Existence of "anything" is regarded by the non-rationalists as an incomprehensible miracle - and seek to "explain" it by reference to non existence. They have never grasped the simple concept that existence simply exists.

[Minimalist]

why do you think this argument has been so convincing to so many people?

They are desperate to believe in their invisible sky-daddy ( it's always their god who does it ) and they are stupid as all fuck.

[Ace Otana]

Their belief in god isn't based on reason, it's based on the deep seated need to believe.
They want to believe in god, they want a god to exist. So they will claw at anything. If they think it'll support their god belief, even a little they will grab it.

[LastPoet]

People fall for this argument mainly due to confirmation bias. The whole argument is a mockery to human intelligence:

1-Everything that has beggining, has a cause
2-The Universe had a cause
3-Therefore the cause is <INSERT PREFERRED DEITY HERE, IGNORING ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES THAT MAY CAUSE THE UNIVERSE>!

Holy fucking non-sequitur Batman!

[downbeatplumb]

How did this uncaused cause create out of nothing.
Is it supposed to be like tabitha waggling its mighty nose and everything pops into being?
Was it a giant god guff or sneeze.
What was the process?
How was it done?

[Doubting Thomas]

Of course, their god exists but never had a beginning or a cause, he just always existed. It's always special pleading with them.

[DeistPaladin]

So again I asked her, what causes beta decay. She promised to answer when she sees me next week and before she left she thanked me for posing an interesting question to her. To be honest, I don't expect an answer but I do not expect her to ever try uttering that idiotic argument again.

I'll provide her answer for her:
GodDoesIt

Ta da!

Actually, in all seriousness, I think there really was a point of a Jack Chick comic, "Big Daddy", where he claims that GodIsIt with regards to the Strong Force that holds atoms together.

---

Of course, their god exists but never had a beginning or a cause, he just always existed. It's always special pleading with them.

...and of course all the other gods are just silly and made up but ours is the real deal. Special pleading on special pleading.