the argument about the First Cause, sorry if its a bit vague!
A genuine question
2007-10-23 12:48:34 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Equinox - it's just me trying to broaden my knoweledge here, no need to get acerbic!
And surely by asking who created the creator you still come to the conclusion that there is a first creator who was the supreme creation because he created himself?
2007-10-23 13:13:21 · update #1
We don't know. The Big Bang is commonly taken as point 0 because anything before it is irrelevant to any calculations. It is only the zero point, the beginning of this Universe, but not for the ones before it.
Theists somehow know, however, and always side-step this question by exempting the creator. That's not really fair though is it?
Atheists don't know everything you know. In contrast theists like to pretend they do, probably because they think they are "God's special creatures".
added:
That's the problem with the internet, you can't get tones across. I wrote my reply with no venom whatsoever - I was just comparing.
The Supreme Creator is still not exempt from Aquanis' argument.
2007-10-23 13:09:30 · answer #1 · answered by Equinox 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would answer it with logic, the first cause paradox. If something can't come from nothing (which is not true anyway) and it has to be started, a first cause aka God. But if you see this logic to it's conclusion, then where does God come from? Because god can't come from nothing either, as you previously stated, something can't come from nothing. Unless God gave birth to himself which is highly unlikely. So where did God's creator come from? And that creator? And that one? So on, forever. It's called "Infinite Regress" The only logical conclusion could be that the universe itself has always been here. There is no beginning and no end, the universe is infinitly old. It was never created, there is no need for a creator. We place the creator in the picture to service our own needs.
2007-10-23 19:59:20 · answer #2 · answered by skunkgrease 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Is that the one? Just raided Wiki.
If cause just means beginning, then its not an argument, it just means that something had a beginning. If cause means 'someone made it or caused it' then false assumption in the first line, not everything has to have someone to cause it.
It's still the god of gaps unfortunately, if you follow the causal chain back far enough you'll always end up with an 'I don't know' and thar be dragons and all things supernatural until the gap gets filled in.
2007-10-24 04:24:08 · answer #3 · answered by numbnuts222 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid our Thomas was a bit medieval in his logic. I would agree with cause and effect but why does it have to be god? How did we convincingly smuggle him into the equation? It's as logical as saying Thomas must have created the universe. Or maybe it was the Pope all the time.
2007-10-24 16:08:17 · answer #4 · answered by Aryacitta 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
State the argument in your own words, and I'll give it a go. I've never yet come across a Catholic argument for the existence of God that I couldn't demolish in about 2 minutes, so I'm up for it.
2007-10-23 19:54:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. What caused that first cause?
2. Why is that first cause God?
2007-10-23 19:56:27 · answer #6 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the is no creator so how can it be made its just a christian fairy tale not true
2007-10-24 07:39:02 · answer #7 · answered by andrew w 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that it is illogical.
2007-10-26 09:40:53 · answer #8 · answered by Adam (AM) 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Atheists hold that Thomas Aquinas was a t wat.
2007-10-23 20:01:38 · answer #9 · answered by poppy vox 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋