First order logic, set theory and God

[dr0n3]

[Fake Messiah]

All this is is a first cause argument: that everything had a cause - God. But that argument fails because then God also needs a cause and if God "doesn't need a cause" -as theists insist- then there is no reason to think universe didn't need a cause, so there you go DEBUNKED.

And all this is now is theists maniacally insisting that their flawed logic is right, although it's not.

[Belacqua]

But that argument fails because then God also needs a cause and if God "doesn't need a cause" -as theists insist- then there is no reason to think universe didn't need a cause, so there you go DEBUNKED.

If someone were to claim that "everything needs a cause," then your objection here would make sense. It's likely that some people who don't understand the real First Cause argument would foolishly claim such a thing.

It's worthwhile noting, though, that if there is a wildly obvious objection to an argument made by a serious philosopher, it most likely has been anticipated and answered by that philosopher long ago. That is the case with the objection you make here. 

The First Cause argument does NOT say that everything has a cause. It says that anything which has been caused must have been caused by something else, because a thing cannot be the cause of itself. 

If you are comfortable with an infinite regress, in which everything is caused by something essentially prior, then there doesn't need to be a first cause. 

If you don't like the thought of an infinite regress, however, then there at some point has to be a cause which caused all the caused things. And since in this version the regress can't be infinite, the final cause in the chain must not have a cause. (And there are arguments against an infinite regress, but those are separate.) 

As always, this argument merely points to a cause. To show that this cause is anything like the Christian God requires separate arguments. And, as I point out a lot, the cause in this argument is not a temporal cause, existing prior in time to other things. It is prior in the sense of an essential sequence of causes. I explained the difference in an earlier post. Or you can look at the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on the Cosmological Argument.

[Fake Messiah]

But that argument fails because then God also needs a cause and if God "doesn't need a cause" -as theists insist- then there is no reason to think universe didn't need a cause, so there you go DEBUNKED.

If someone were to claim that "everything needs a cause," then your objection here would make sense. It's likely that some people who don't understand the real First Cause argument would foolishly claim such a thing.

Sure, they might be slightly different but they both arise from some of the same assumptions and suffer from some of the same weaknesses, although there are also some unique aspects of each. Most fundamentally, both operate from the premise that the universe, the totality of existence, needs an explanation. This is stipulated, not demonstrated. It may be that the universe merely is and makes the explanation of any particular thing possible and interesting.

[Belacqua]

Most fundamentally, both operate from the premise that the universe, the totality of existence, needs an explanation. 

I don't think this would be an accurate summary of the motives behind the First Cause argument. But since we don't have the ability to discern the personal motives of people who are long dead, neither of us really knows. 

Rather than beginning with the fact that something needs to be explained, Aristotle began with very simple observable facts and built logically from there. We notice motion, we notice causality. Given these facts, where does the logic lead? 

This is stipulated, not demonstrated. It may be that the universe merely is and makes the explanation of any particular thing possible and interesting.

That may be so. The fact that it may be so doesn't mean that a First Cause argument is incorrect. It doesn't affect the quality of the logic employed to demonstrate a first cause. 

To address the argument, we'd have to begin with what the argument actually says.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Meh.  I've grown quickly bored with this clown when all he knows how to do is insult and lie.  Not worth my time, but I may still occasionally indulge in poking the bear.

Agreed. He is not capable of understanding everyone else's counter-argument and so unless you are prepared to repeat yourself indefinitely it rather kills off the conversation.

@dr0n3. Can you demonstrate that you understand anyone else's counter-argument? I am not saying that you need to agree with what people are saying, I just want to see whether you have actually understood anything that anybody has said to you.

[Fake Messiah]

Rather than beginning with the fact that something needs to be explained, Aristotle began with very simple observable facts and built logically from there. We notice motion, we notice causality. Given these facts, where does the logic lead? 

Where would it lead? To Zeus or to Big Bang. I mean after all  Aristotle's gods have been debunked so why bother? Not to mention the despair of talking about the cosmic ideas that a man who had very primitive means to explore the world and thus had very primitive ideas about it. His explanation of gravity is that all bodies move toward their natural place and he also thought that heavier objects would fall faster than light ones - I mean he even failed to do the experiment.

Yeah, let's all go to the Aristotle to prove existence of god.

[Angrboda]

I admire your tenacity of making yourself relevant again after being chucked out. However, I despise more than anything, that hypocrisy you seem to display so shamelessly.

I'll let the audience decide on that one. Hypocrite.

    Jörmungandr

I said that all you do is insult and lie, pointing out that you haven't addressed my substantial objection. Even if I was saying that it is wrong to insult and lie, you would still be wrong in calling me a hypocrite because I didn't lie. Nor was that all that I have done in this thread. But since I wasn't saying it was wrong to insult, alone, or at all, but rather to do nothing more than insult and lie, the hypocrisy doesn't exist. So, no, I'm not guilty of hypocrisy. And the proof of that is in the very post you quoted in which I pointed out that I had not committed the fallacy I was accused of. My doing so was neither an insult nor a lie. You're simply wrong once again.

Of course you can prove me wrong by addressing my first post and the fallacy in your argument.

Instead you'd rather falsely accuse me of fallacies I haven't committed, say that I must be a child, and accuse me of hypocrisy that I'm not guilty of.

You really do appear to be stupid.

---

But that argument fails because then God also needs a cause and if God "doesn't need a cause" -as theists insist- then there is no reason to think universe didn't need a cause, so there you go DEBUNKED.

If someone were to claim that "everything needs a cause," then your objection here would make sense. It's likely that some people who don't understand the real First Cause argument would foolishly claim such a thing.

Actually, that's exactly what the OP's argument claims, so your objection is moot (see below).

The axioms are that:

P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A->A) or other-caused (B->A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question "why?" is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason.

[DeistPaladin]

Along with that nonsensical vague statement of yours, I will also ask you to dispose of those red herrings in the trash can. As stated in the OP, you were asked to provide a well-thought-out counterargument to hatcher's proof and point out any inconsistencies therein, which, by the nature of your post, you've miserably failed to do so. Without that, all your self-aggrandizing drivel is just that, meaningless hogwash. If you're not satisfied with the evidence, you can either leave, or engage in a meaningful and fruitful dialogue. As for the caliber of evidence you require, you won't have it - and if that's an issue for you, well you can always shove your right hand where the sun doesn't shine and find your god up there.

Yeah I pretty much have you pegged: The Pompous Apologist. 
Unfortunately, your haughty demeanor doesn't compensate for your lack of evidence. You have failed and will continue to fail to meet your burden of proof. That's the reason you could post your junk philosophy on a thousand atheist forums and not get a single convert to Islam.

[DeistPaladin]

Here's my post on the taxonomy of apologists (or "Breeds of Apologists (and how to debate them)")

https://atheistforums.org/thread-16473.html

The Pompous Apologist

Demeanor: This apologist wants to come across as a professor of philosophy and the skeptics are all students to be lectured and graded. You can spot them not just by their arrogant demeanor and snippy, dismissive attitude toward their opponent, but also by their use of philosophy terms, Latin phrases and accusations (well founded or not) of logical fallacies by their opponent. In debate, they will go on the offensive, looking for any mistakes by the skeptic to harp on, whether these mistakes be something as trivial as a grammatical error or one that is beside the point .
Possible Nature: This breed of apologist seems intelligent and educated enough to pull off this act. They seem to think playing up the professorial act will help obfuscate the absence of any evidence for their claims. They also seem savvy enough to know that the best defense is a good offense. My experience is they tend to be sleazy and you can usually catch them in a lie if you are patient enough. 
Favorite Fallacies: Poisoning the Well and red herring. They will try their utmost to undermine your credibility or insult your lack of scholarship. Where possible, they will shift the discussion away from the topic to harp on some mistake you've made. 
Suggested Strategy: Keep a cool head. Don't react to their insults or respond in kind. They'll put their hand on their chest as say "what was that about?" Don't use sarcasm or humor. They'll use it to suggest you're not a serious debater. Don't get distracted as they employ red herring evasion. Keep their feet to the fire and remind them the burden of proof is on them. Keep at them with polite demands that they talk about what they believe and how they justify those beliefs. Use the quote function to take them back to what they said earlier. These apologists will lie about what they said earlier, so always be ready to go to the tape.