How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[KUSA]

And we know things could not have began from nothing.

I believe that everything that exists actually came from nothing. This is obviously counter intuitive but nevertheless has to be true.

[robvalue]

What we call "the sun" is just a load of stuff, we label it as a group for convenience. Just because we label it as such, it doesn't become its own object in its own right. It's an abstract concept. It is made up of parts which already existed in other forms. At some point we look at it and go, "Ah! We'll call that lot of stuff the sun".

This is not the same as things coming out of nowhere, like you're trying to imply the universe has to. You're saying a god made it from nothing, while simultaneously saying things can't be made from nothing.

Again: how can you know it's possible this God can exist?

[KUSA]

Sun began to exist.

The sun was formed from matter that was already there. Everything that exists was formed out of something that was already there.

[Mystic]

What we call "the sun" is just a load of stuff, we label it as a group for convenience. Just because we label it as such, it doesn't become its own object in its own right. It's an abstract concept. It is made up of parts which already existed in other forms. At some point we look at it and go, "Ah! We'll call that lot of stuff the sun".

This is not the same as things coming out of nowhere, like you're trying to imply the universe has to.

But when I making the argument, I'm not assuming what you are stating is false. I am showing by conclusion the universe began to exist since it's subject to change. I'm not arguing the sun appeared out of nothing, I am arguing the sun didn't always exist as in what we call the sun wasn't always there, not that what consists of the substance of the sun didn't originate from something that was always there...the latter is proven by conclusion but not assumed.

I think your argument comes down to affirming the conclusion, strawmanning the angle of the statements made, and not dealing with the argument at hand.

[JesusHChrist]

Mystic Knight, you are conflating creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo.

Theists constantly make this mistake when discussing first cause arguments.

One is creation from nothing, the other is creation from existing material, such as stars, planets and the existing universe itself.

Other than virtual quantum particles, is there evidence for anything else in all of our experience that is creatio ex nihilo?

The Big Bang most certainly does not qualify as creatio ex nihilo. The material was (as far as we know) right there in the singularity.

[Mystic]

Sun began to exist.

The sun was formed from matter that was already there. Everything that exists was formed out of something that was already there.

Whether that it is true or not, it would be affirming the conclusion to argue either way from the start. What I am stating is not assuming either of the assumptions to be true, it's working with the premise that all states of change began to exist. Sun is a state of change of things, it was not always there. There is no state of the universe that was always there, each state began to exist like the Sun. That leads to the conclusion the whole of it began to exist, which therefore to assume it's eternal is illogical.

[robvalue]

I can't really argue with you very much more MK as one of us has logic totally wrong. We can't agree on the very basics here. You just accused me of a bunch of logical fallacies, and I can't see how any of them apply.

So I think I'll have to call it a day. If it's me who's wrong, I'll be more than happy for others to point it out. I would recommend going and seeing someone, a logician, and getting another opinion. I'd be very interested in the results.

[Mystic]

 The material was (as far as we know) right there in the singularity.

But it doesn't make sense to say the singularity always existed. If it always existed, it would never change and would exist now. While there is no going back before the first point of time, it also didn't always exist. So if we go backwards, every state moves from another state. Yet to say the first state of the universe simply eternally existed, would go against all the states we know of the universe: that they began to exist.

This is actually the real special pleading. And it's Atheists that often do this special pleading with the first state of the universe, ironically, accusing God of being special pleading.

[JesusHChrist]

 The material was (as far as we know) right there in the singularity.

But it doesn't make sense to say the singularity always existed. If it always existed, it would never change and would exist now. While there is no going back before the first point of time, it also didn't always exist. So if we go backwards, every state moves from another state. Yet to say the first state of the universe simply eternally existed, would go against all the states we know of the universe: that they began to exist.

This is actually the real special pleading. And it's Atheists that often do this special pleading with the first state of the universe, ironically, accusing God of being special pleading.

I did not say the singularity always existed. That is the part of which humans are ignorant. We don't know what happened before Planck time and may never know. 

There is no evidence there was a "first" state. What happened over the Planck horizon is currently unknown, but may some day be determined. It's OK to say we simply don't know. Pop a goddit in there if it makes you feel better.

For now, any god has been reduced to existing on the other side of Planck time; safe and sound. A pitiful, small existence for a supposed mighty critter.

[Iroscato]

When we talk about what happened "before" inflation, our current scientific understanding ends. Just because there's a gap, however, doesn't mean you should stick a god in there. "Time" as we think of it most likely did not exist in the singularity, but I'll stop talking before my brain goes supernova.