What do atheists think the first cause of everything is?

Question

According to the law of cause and effect everything has a cause. A chain of causes cannot be infinite, there must have been a first cause at some time or other in the past. The first cause must also have been without a cause i.e. not subject to the law of cause and effect or any other laws of nature that govern matter. In another words the first cause must have been supernatural.

How do atheists who claim to respect the laws of nature get round this one?

Isn't atheism just another religion, except that atheists worship the material universe and embue it with all the attributes normally associated with a supernatural Creator?

proudstud
Are you really saying that the universe originated without a cause. Perhaps you subscribe to the loony notion that in the beginning there was nothing, then that nothing exploded and became everything. A so-called 'singularity' where the laws of nature did not apply. A layperson would call that a miracle or just plain magic. A little less of the high faluting, theoretical mumbo-jumbo and a little more classical physics combined with some common sense wouldn't go amiss. Perhaps you should brush up on the latter. Oh by the way! if in the beginning a cosmic egg arose which exploded into everything, how about the theory that a cosmic chicken laid it? I've yet to hear a better explanation from the theoretical physicists.

Answer 1

All hail the big bang from nothingness! Yeah, very logical, and they call us nuts.

Answer 2

Well, first of all, there IS NO "law of cause and effect" in the physical sciences. It is a philosophical idea, cooked up by the ancient Greeks... and pretty much demolished around 700 years ago by William of Occam. That is not to say that science denies causality... that is at the core of Newtonian physics; but for nearly 100 years, experiments in the quantum realm have shown that outcomes vary statistically, and that concrete cause-and-effect relationships simply do not exist. Since the 'big bang' occurred from a singularity, quantum rules would have prevailed... not some event that can be attributed to any specific cause in any way. Of course, there is always the possibility that the universe (in some form or another) has always existed.

By the way... the idea of 'First Cause' (and what serves you as a substitute for logic and reason) is predicated in a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argument ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not represent a limitation of nature... it represents a limitation of knowledge or intellect. Additionally, it is intellectually dishonest... it does not ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge or intellect... it appeals to a fanciful, imaginary, supernatural entity to create the ILLUSION that your cognitive dissonance has been resolved. It substitutes 'faith' for fact, and 'belief' for knowledge. Neither faith nor belief are sufficient to sustain reason... they are only sufficient to sustain willful ignorance.

That is the epitome of self-delusion.

Answer 3

Causality is a law within the universe, but it does not apply to the universe itself. Cause and effect requires time, if something happens then something will happen afterwards. Before the Big Bang there was no time, so causality can not be applied. Furthermore, the law of cause and effect is not completely accurate. Radioactive decay is an effect that has no cause as well as the annihilation of a particle and an anti-particle. You really should catch up on your science.

Next question.

Answer 4

I can't speak for others (I'm actually agnostic), but I think that most atheists admit that we do not know the specifics of how the universe was created.

The "first cause" does not have to be without cause if the process is circular and self-sustaining. Essentially, the "cause" would initiate an effect which, in turn, causes the first cause. (Try saying that three times, fast.)

Atheism is not a religion, just a particular belief. It is possible for an atheist to have religion (Buddhism, Unitarianism, etc.), but most are secular (having no religious or supernatural beliefs).

Answer 5

Atheism is not another religion, and I find the insinuation that an atheist is, by definition, more materialistic and less generous than a person with faith very offensive. It could be argued that wholesale acceptance of the creation theory is an easy way of solving the question of the meaning of life, and that the atheist is a good deal more thoughtful and better-informed on the subject.

Answer 6

according to the laws of this universe, there is cause and effect. that's number one - anything before this universe, including the beginning of this universe, can't necessarily be said to have a cause, because cause didn't exist until this universe.

the big bang theory nicely explains what's happening in our universe. since the universe is full of matter and anti-matter, everything in the universe adds up to ZERO. To NOTHING. Nothing was so dense it just exploded. And here we are.

We know that there are more than a dozen dimensions. Our understanding is extremely and unavoidably limited. Almost as limited as using the ideas of ancient bedouins to navigate modern life.

and, no, a religion requires a god. atheism specifically means - without god. so, no, it's not a religion. that is a very evil and dangerous argument put forrward by right wing christians who just cannot stand that they are not able to tax us all to fund their religion and its practice.

Answer 7

I am an atheist.

But ... I don't know of (or recognise) a law of cause and effect.

Hume defined cause as follows: "an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second." He then argued (according to most philosophers - and I fall in this camp as well) that nothing in the world deserves the name of causal necessity - at best, there are (statistical) regularities between events. It is us who, in our minds, form the idea of causal necessity. Thus, when we kick a ball, we not only suppose that it will move, but that it must move.

Kant described causal necessity nicely as: " ... a bastard of the imagination, impregnated by experience ..."

Answer 8

1. It wouldn't be wise to take what we have learned and assume there's nothing else to learn

2. The law of cause is an assumption it self. No beginning and no end could be a whole new science that we haven't even began to understand

Answer 9

Cause and Effect is not a law of nature just another attempt to explain things. It is as arguable as any faith stance and therefore not part of the atheist armament. Its fundamental flaw is that we cannot ever discover a prime cause let alone prove it.

Answer 10

atheism isn't a religion. it means literally 'no god'.
atheists could if they wanted to worship the material world, but that wouldn't make atheism a religion, it would just mean that some atheists did that.
anyway, i don't see a difference between the problem of cause and effect in atheism, and the problem of where god came from in religion ? (saying god has always existed is no solution.)

Answer 11

There was no first cause.

Only creationists require a "first cause" to justify their delusions.

The universe has always existed. Our visible universe is a tiny speck in the entire universe. It can be compared to a single bubble in a bubble bath.

It was not created by anyone or anything.