The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Nishant Xavier]

Deese: understanding of a 6 yr old? Lol. Heard of IIMs? They're the best Management Institution in India. Some 1 BN Indians aim to get into them, and 2000-3000 do every year(and it was less in my time than it is now), and I was one of them. Also, right now, I work in a top US Investment Bank, and so yeah, I'm fairly good at Math and stuff, thank you very much.

Btw, you blatantly contradicted yourself when you said: "The universe itself qualifies as a potential first cause."

Yet earlier you said: "Misrepresentation #2. No one here said that the universe was a "first cause". Au contraire, according to the big bang model, most people here will claim that the universe is definitely NOT a "first cause"."

I could ask you: "Ignorant or dishonest? Please show your colors. The ignorant will ask, the dishonest will ignore and go on, like you did in the past." which you falsely asked me. So settle the blatant contradiction in your own words first. Then go back and read the response to this claim of yours above. The Universe cannot be the First Cause because the Universe does not demonstrate the deducible properties of the first cause.

Be back later.

[Angrboda]

The two sources that I can find claim that around 200,000 take the CAT for admission to IIMs annually. If you have a source for the 1 billion figure, I'd appreciate a citation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that your unwillingness to consider the universe as a hypothetical first cause may have more to do with it lacking the properties you believe your god has, than lacking the sort of relationship to contingency and necessity that a first cause is alleged to have.

[Deesse23]

Btw, you blatantly contradicted yourself when you said: "The universe itself qualifies as a potential first cause."

Yet earlier you said: "Misrepresentation #2. No one here said that the universe was a "first cause". Au contraire, according to the big bang model, most people here will claim that the universe is definitely NOT a "first cause"."

Jesus F. Christ, you are really dense.

IF your first cause theory would hold water, the universe would qualify as first cause. IN YOUR LITTLE IGNORANT WORLD it would.
Educated people do not ascribe to this fallacious idea at all, since they dont believe in first causes. Because we actually dont know what happened "before" T=10^-34s. Ergo, they dont think the universe is a first cause.

Deese: understanding of a 6 yr old? Lol. Heard of IIMs? They're the best Management Institution in India. Some 1 BN Indians aim to get into them, and 2000-3000 do every year(and it was less in my time than it is now), and I was one of them. Also, right now, I work in a top US Investment Bank, and so yeah, I'm fairly good at Math and stuff, thank you very much. 

What the fuck? Are you now arguing that being able to calculate stuff, and having a fooking management degree makes you qualified to bastardize philosophy and science? Do you think THATS a good excuse for your ignorance?

I went o one of the best electronics faculties in Germany, ended up at the bottom of the upper 3rd of the population. Does that make ME right? It certainly makes me more qualified than you, but our claims must have their own merits.
Your claims, they have none.

Have you changed your opinion in the meantime on m-eve and her sisters descendants having died out?
Have you learned that Stalin does not, and can not stand for Atheism?
Have you worked on how to argue about contingency, causality and beings in the absence of time and space?

[Nishant Xavier]

I think that your unwillingness to consider the universe as a hypothetical first cause may have more to do with it lacking the properties you believe your god has, than lacking the sort of relationship to contingency and necessity that a first cause is alleged to have.

Answered earlier. Here it re-summarized and expanded upon, 4 Reasons the Universe cannot be the First Cause:

R1: The Universe began to exist. What began to exist exists contingently. Therefore, the Universe cannot be the (non-contingent) First Cause.
R2: Further, the Universe was caused by the Big Bang a finite time ago in the past. Now, what was caused by definition cannot be the First Cause.
R3: Even Further, it is generally agreed the Universe can cease to exist at a Big Crunch event in the future. Again, what can cease to exist is not a Necessarily Existent Being, because what exists necessarily will never cease to exist. Granted the Universe can, therefore, it is not the First Cause.
R4: Still Further, the Universe began a finite time ago. But we showed in Property I (which none of you have challenged yet AFAIR) that the First Cause had no beginning but exists eternally. Ergo, etc (universe cannot be the first cause). How many more reasons are needed?

It's not the universe that is the first cause; rather it is the First Cause of the Universe that the Contingency-Necessity Argument proves. B1, contingent on no prior being, existing eternally, not caused by the Big Bang, is therefore not the universe itself, but the First Cause of the Universe.

Let me come to Property IV of the First Cause that makes this even more clear: especially because "potential first cause" was said above, which is ironic, the 4th Property is that the First Cause has no Potentiality, but is Pure Actuality, nothing that He can become that He is already not. 

Property IV of the First Cause: The First Cause has no Potentiality but is Pure Actuality. If some attribute or perfection exists in God, it exists in the highest possible degree, without possibility of decrease or increase. This is also referred to as the Simplicity of God/the FC. Needless to say, the Universe does not demonstrate this quality.

Proof of Property IV: This is another consequence of His Non-Contingency. It should be observed that beings like man can not only corrupt or decay, can begin to exist and cease to exist, and thereby are called contingent; but further, we can also increase or decrease in various attributes, like power, wisdom, goodness etc - but this is another hallmark of contingency. We have little strength, and we potentially could have much more; these are various contingencies in our being. But in the First Cause, which exists non-contingently, such contingencies like potentialities are impossible. There is therefore no contingency in God/FC; granted that some power and wisdom exists in God, and it clearly had to because He caused the Universe to begin to exist, it follows that God is not merely a powerful being or a wise being, but is Power itself, and the source of all power, and Wisdom itself, and the source of all Wisdom, and so on and so forth with all His attributes (including Goodness, based on Prop III). 

Again, non-potentiality, like non-contingency itself, is not an essential feature of the Universe. Therefore, it is the Cause of the Universe, not the universe itself, that is non-contingent, or non-potential, and thus the First Being in Existence, whom we called B1 in the OP.

[no one]

A new study shows christibois are very stupid and 99% still wet the bed. The study also shines a light on the 66.6% of christibois who still suck on mama's teet.

[Fake Messiah]

R1: The Universe began to exist. What began to exist exists contingently. Therefore, the Universe cannot be the (non-contingent) First Cause.

Actually, there is no evidence that the universe began to exist. What happened after the big bang was the expansion of the universe. The universe probably existed forever.

[Deesse23]

R1: The Universe began to exist. What began to exist exists contingently. Therefore, the Universe cannot be the (non-contingent) First Cause.

You still dont understand, do you?
You have your script, and youll stick with it, like a broken record.
You can not know if the universe ever began to exist. Stop pretending you do.

[The Grand Nudger]

As another poster already pointed out, you might have misunderstood the big bang model. R1, R2, R3, and R4 are all the same statement, swirling around that misapprehension.

You believe that some "He" created the universe, this is a property that you believe that your god has - but not a reason that the universe cannot qualify as a first cause. I call this rationalization The Universe...With a Penis. We get it all the time. However, it seems to me that the universe created your god - as the universe created us, and we created your god. If you're wedded to aristotlean theology, then perhaps you should spend more time with spinoza and less time with saint tommy?

[brewer]

Deese: understanding of a 6 yr old? Lol. Heard of IIMs? They're the best Management Institution in India. Some 1 BN Indians aim to get into them, and 2000-3000 do every year(and it was less in my time than it is now), and I was one of them. Also, right now, I work in a top US Investment Bank, and so yeah, I'm fairly good at Math and stuff, thank you very much.

Btw, you blatantly contradicted yourself when you said: "The universe itself qualifies as a potential first cause."

Yet earlier you said: "Misrepresentation #2. No one here said that the universe was a "first cause". Au contraire, according to the big bang model, most people here will claim that the universe is definitely NOT a "first cause"."

I could ask you: "Ignorant or dishonest? Please show your colors. The ignorant will ask, the dishonest will ignore and go on, like you did in the past." which you falsely asked me. So settle the blatant contradiction in your own words first. Then go back and read the response to this claim of yours above. The Universe cannot be the First Cause because the Universe does not demonstrate the deducible properties of the first cause.

Be back later.

bold mine

Only an unsupported claim. Provide proof: when, where, CAT score, what level of degree/certification, what US bank and what position do you hold.

You made the claim, now put up or shut up.