How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[robvalue]

I'll leave you with these two final questions MK before I give up.

1- How do you know what happened before the Plank time when all of science has failed?

2- How do you know it is possible that this God you define can actually exist?

[Mystic]

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.

If we assume there is a before plank time, we are just extending the state of the universe before plank time, and extended time before that.  This is quite irrelevant, and I personally believe infinite spirits were created and tested, before the physical creation of the universe...so I would not define it as the first point of time myself.

But this doesn't do anything to the argument I am showing. My argument goes somewhat like this. Assume universe is of infinite past states. All states of it began to exist (states, not what constitutes the essence of the universe) because every single state of is subject to change. Therefore it makes no sense to say the universe didn't begin to exist, from the view point of "all states" or "any single state of it" (none of it always existed, not a single state of it always existed). Therefore it's a paradox, and we know due to it being in motion and subject to change, it didn't always exist.

The Creator however is not subject to change. Doesn't constitute of moment to moment existence and flow.

[Tonus]

  The change is made in order to provide an exception for god.  Isn't that special pleading, by definition?

It's not special pleading. Special pleading is when the rule applies to it, and you point to an irrelevant difference. If however, you show the rule/premise/case doesn't apply to it, it's not special pleading.

But you cannot show that the premise doesn't apply to god, you can only claim it. By that reasoning, we can exempt the universe from premise one by claiming that it has always existed in some form. Presto, the first cause argument is broken.

[Mystic]

It's not special pleading. Special pleading is when the rule applies to it, and you point to an irrelevant difference. If however, you show the rule/premise/case doesn't apply to it, it's not special pleading.

But you cannot show that the premise doesn't apply to god, you can only claim it.  By that reasoning, we can exempt the universe from premise one by claiming that it has always existed in some form.  Presto, the first cause argument is broken.

Sure that would negate the first cause argument, but if an argument was shown that the universe began to exist, then the argument becomes sound.  If the universe didn't begin to exist, then this argument is not sound. However, I've shown arguments that the argument is sound. I also made the following argument in the past:

An effect needs a cause.
A series of cause and effect is an effect itself.
An infinite series of cause and effect is a series of cause and effect.
Therefore it needs a cause.
Infinite series of effect by definition doesn't require a cause.
Therefore it's a paradox.
Therefore infinite series of effect is impossible as it's paradoxical.

This shows non-effect, non-caused cause created all effects.

The problem is not these arguments are not sound and proven by reason.  The problem is people can deny the most obvious truths. For example, someone stated they believe that everything began from nothing and came from nothing.

When we deny knowledge we been given and that is part of "reason", then sure, we can deny proofs of a Creator or God. But with submissive hearts to the truth, everything becomes easy.

[Alex K]

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.

If we assume there is a before plank time, we are just extending the state of the universe before plank time, and extended time before that.  This is quite irrelevant, and I personally believe infinite spirits were created and tested, before the physical creation of the universe...so I would not define it as the first point of time myself.

But this doesn't do anything to the argument I am showing. My argument goes somewhat like this. Assume universe is of infinite past states. All states of it began to exist (states, not what constitutes the essence of the universe) because every single state of is subject to change. Therefore it makes no sense to say the universe didn't begin to exist, from the view point of "all states" or "any single state of it" (none of it always existed, not a single state of it always existed). Therefore it's a paradox, and we know due to it being in motion and subject to change, it didn't always exist.

The Creator however is not subject to change. Doesn't constitute of moment to moment existence and flow.

I don't know what you mean by "its states"...

[JuliaL]

If we assume there is a before plank time, we are just extending the state of the universe before plank time, and extended time before that.  This is quite irrelevant, and I personally believe infinite spirits were created and tested, before the physical creation of the universe...so I would not define it as the first point of time myself.

But this doesn't do anything to the argument I am showing. My argument goes somewhat like this. Assume universe is of infinite past states. All states of it began to exist (states, not what constitutes the essence of the universe) because every single state of is subject to change. Therefore it makes no sense to say the universe didn't begin to exist, from the view point of "all states" or "any single state of it" (none of it always existed, not a single state of it always existed). Therefore it's a paradox, and we know due to it being in motion and subject to change, it didn't always exist.

The Creator however is not subject to change. Doesn't constitute of moment to moment existence and flow.

My bold.

Only true from the perspective of one for whom time passes.  In a block universe, everything always exists and we only see time as passing because of our perspective.

Though I will grant that it seems as if the universe (using a modified classical definition of universe as being everything we can can perceive and investigate as existing) had an appearance event including the appearance of what we call time.  This says nothing of the causally prior state of affairs that brought the universe into being.

1) Why do you feel you know what that prior state of affairs was?  On what basis to you make claim of such knowledge?
2) Why do you feel that all other explanations of that prior state of affairs are misguided?
3) If all such explanations are indistinguishable from imaginary things clerics made up, what privileges yours?

[Brian37]

The op missed the point that "something or nothing " either way, still would not require a cognition as a cause.

I see "all this" as a giant weather pattern in which we are riding in, like a hurricane collects from smaller parts based on climate conditions, eventually to break down again.

But none of this needs a magic man gap answer anymore than Thor is needed to explain lightening.

[Tonus]

I also made the following argument in the past:

An effect needs a cause.

...unless it's a conveniently-defined "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" who is exempt from the rule. My point is that I can simply apply the rule to the universe itself. If we continue to apply the exemption to our reasoning, then the whole endeavor has been poisoned. I can simply modify my reasoning to allow for an eternal universe via explanations that consist of nothing but claims. I can try to ward off investigation of my approach by appealing to "obvious truths" and "submissive hearts." Reason does not consist of a bunch of imagined steps and convenient rules. That works well for myths and religion, but not if we're making an honest effort at finding out what really happened.

[Mystic]

JuliaL

The argument is that no matter how much we extend states of the universe, even if we assume it's of infinite states in the past, we come to the notion it had to begin to exist, because each state of it began to exist, and all of it's states therefore began to exist, therefore it makes no sense to say it didn't begin to exist....therefore assuming it's of infinite past will just make us realize it's a paradox....which points to a beginning of universe.

However to state we can't go back before the first point of time, and hence, for all we know, this doesn't require a cause, is really the special pleading, because it didn't always exist either and began.

From what I read, for example, Stephen Hawkins would argue "there is no more north to the north pole" and hence we don't need to concern ourselves with what is before the first point of time even though we know the universe began both through philosophical and scientific argument (he argues science confirms philosophy in this respect). However, I feel that is the real special pleading. Just because it's the first state of the universe, it doesn't mean we don't know that it began to exist. And just because there is no going back before beginning of time, doesn't mean we can't know it requires a cause as it to began to exist. Therefore this is the real special pleading.

I think Stephen Hawkins changed his view over the years maybe, I don't know, but I have "brief history of time" in my room.

[Alex K]

Again - states of the universe... what do you mean???

Also: Hawking