Terrible Atheist Argument #1

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Okay, so there are smart atheists and there are dumb atheists.

Some dumb atheists make some piss poor arguments. Here I'll deal with one that comes up a lot.

1) "If God created everything then who created God?"

This is one facepalmtastic objection. Typically the atheist is some 12 year old who thinks he's "refuted religion". If he is, it's no use trying to reason. But if there are smart atheists, they ought to know why this is a terrible argument:

a) There are various beings that are called "God", and they all have different features. But philosophically, the most rigorous concept of God is called the "Maximally Great Being", or a being that possesses all the categories of greatness to such a degree that nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being is almost always thought to be personal rather than impersonal.

b) One of the features of this maximally great being is it's role as the "First cause" or "uncaused cause". To understand what this is, you have to look at everything in the world in terms of cause-effect relations. Everything contingent has a cause that leads backwards in a causal chain. Does the causal chain go on infinitely, or is it finite? Theists argue that the causal chain is finite, and it begins at an uncaused cause, or first cause which was not itself caused by anything. This is God.

If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.

What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.

[Minimalist]

Don't worry, Vinnie. No one will ever call you "god."

[Sejanus]

Ok, I believe you on one, crucial condition: where is the evidence for this "Maximally Great Being"?

[Brakeman]

If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.

What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.

That's silly. Of course you can. Adding god only adds a layer. Your argument always applies to the last layer, god or not.

What is really pathetic is desperately trying to create a god out of philosophy knots.

[Bob Kelso]

But Sejanus he's dismantling "terrible atheist arguments" not the complete lack of evidence for this being.

[Ryantology]

If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.

What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.

i) God as first cause only works if the causal chain is not infinite. It has not been established as finite.
ii) Any explanation suggesting that God is uncaused just as easily suggests that the universe is uncaused.
iii) If "who created God" is an invalid question, "who created the universe" is even less valid because only the universe is demonstrable and it has no traits which can only be explained by intelligent design theory.
iv) Just because biased believers give their god attributes specifically designed to allow them to win any possible by-proxy dick-measuring contest imaginable doesn't mean that the first cause assertion is in any way a valid position.

[max-greece]

Okay, so there are smart atheists and there are dumb atheists.

Some dumb atheists make some piss poor arguments. Here I'll deal with one that comes up a lot.

1) "If God created everything then who created God?"

This is one facepalmtastic objection. Typically the atheist is some 12 year old who thinks he's "refuted religion". If he is, it's no use trying to reason. But if there are smart atheists, they ought to know why this is a terrible argument:

a) There are various beings that are called "God", and they all have different features. But philosophically, the most rigorous concept of God is called the "Maximally Great Being", or a being that possesses all the categories of greatness to such a degree that nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being is almost always thought to be personal rather than impersonal.

b) One of the features of this maximally great being is it's role as the "First cause" or "uncaused cause". To understand what this is, you have to look at everything in the world in terms of cause-effect relations. Everything contingent has a cause that leads backwards in a causal chain. Does the causal chain go on infinitely, or is it finite? Theists argue that the causal chain is finite, and it begins at an uncaused cause, or first cause which was not itself caused by anything. This is God.

If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.

What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.

I think there are more challenges than just those 2.

You might challenge the idea that causality applies outside the universe, or before the universe (if that concept has any meaning).

You might challenge the idea that an uncaused, first cause actually solves any of the problems in the first place. If we are using experience of the way things work down here on earth and trying to apply them to outside the universe we don't even have an example of an efficient cause without a material cause.

We may, however, have an example of a material cause without an efficient cause, which undermines the idea, or requirement for an intelligent God.

[Esquilax]

1) "If God created everything then who created God?"

This is one facepalmtastic objection. Typically the atheist is some 12 year old who thinks he's "refuted religion". If he is, it's no use trying to reason.

I don't think it's a terribly wonderful objection either, but it does serve a purpose in demonstrating the lazy special pleading inherent in the Maximally Great Being concept.

a) There are various beings that are called "God", and they all have different features. But philosophically, the most rigorous concept of God is called the "Maximally Great Being", or a being that possesses all the categories of greatness to such a degree that nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being is almost always thought to be personal rather than impersonal.

Incidentally, it's also an infinite concept itself, which is another problem with this argument: it solves exactly nothing. As I've mentioned in other threads, there's no upper limit on "maximally great," and so what you get is an endless chain of maximally great beings that can be surpassed the moment they're posited by simply adding a single additional positive trait onto the current link in the chain: "my maximally great being is the same as yours, only he can kill yours!"

b) One of the features of this maximally great being is it's role as the "First cause" or "uncaused cause". To understand what this is, you have to look at everything in the world in terms of cause-effect relations. Everything contingent has a cause that leads backwards in a causal chain. Does the causal chain go on infinitely, or is it finite? Theists argue that the causal chain is finite, and it begins at an uncaused cause, or first cause which was not itself caused by anything. This is God.

Two problems: sans evidence- which the theist never seems to provide- the argument that the causal chain is finite is hardly worthy of much additional contemplation, and just calling that first cause god is yet another unjustified assumption, since "finite causal chain," does not in any way imply a conscious being, let alone a specific divine one.

If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.

What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.

Of course you can imply that; if your argument merely asserts that god is uncaused, then an equally bland assertion that god does need a cause is fair game. At the very least, it should hint at the problems in arguing by just defining whatever you need into existence.

[pocaracas]

Some dumb atheists make some piss poor arguments. Here I'll deal with one that comes up a lot.

It's not the atheists' fault that theists make some piss poor arguments and wish us to respond...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This has always struck me as rather an as hoc argument: Everything that began to exist must have a beginning (somewhat tautological in itself), but theists comfortably insist that only God did not have a beginning.

Pretty weak.

Boru