For athiests, please go through the argument completely before answering.?

Question

http://www.chinmayauk.org/Articles/Articles%20By%20Mission%20Teachers/Swami%20C/27.htm

What are your comments on this explanation? I know you guys are so enthusiastic that even before understanding what the person is saying, you'll start proving him wrong. So please read first!

ZC™ AM© VT® - Ok, it might be boring for you, but that doesn't mean it's not true!

Matter and energy have always existed? That's faulty...
Who told you? When "always" itself has not always existed. Time itself could have been created with Space at the Big Bang. Then how do you say matter and energy existed?

-=[A7X]=.. Wow, you have the solution for the chicken and egg paradox? Why don't you share it with the scientists, they need your help!
Anyway, do you have any relevant points to add?

"I'm an Atheist" - You say "The perfect proof is both logical and concise... "
That means you have a pre-conceived notion of how the perfect proof looks like... If you are looking for answers, be prepared for surprises.

First of all, entire books can be written, but still not describe God, because we are dealing with realms outside of our limited perceptions. We are used to thinking in three dimensions and with linear concept of time. If you're dealing with topics like God, you 'll have to try not to limit your mind!

garwy - Ok, may be aquinas is inspired from Vedanta then. Can you please add "your" contribution relevant to the discussion here?

Eric (Rockin' Rick) - Thanks man! At least you are specific! This kind of relevant logical discussion is what I am looking for.

I agree, you can't get 'God is first cause' from 'every effect has a cause'. But 'God is the UNCAUSED CAUSE' is a statement, not a derivation from the 'every effect has a cause'. It kinds of gives a hint on the nature of God, one aspect in the definition of God. Its not a proof, but an explanation.

If God created everything, who created God? It's same as chicken and egg. The chicken and the egg example is given just to show the limit of human intellect. When it comes to God, which is the subject rather than an object, intellect is unable to grasp it because it seeks to find an object as it does in the world.

I think I got what is happening. The text says God is beyond intellect, and you guys will not take anything which is not logically proven, (it has to be proved to your intellect), it is a chicken and the egg situation here :-)

Thanks for your input

James - I'm not a big fan of religion myself, more interested in spiritual knowledge. But sometimes I tend to defend my religion when people try to convince me that there religion is the only correct one. :-)

Ninja Turtle AM - you have good points. As I mentioned above, the uncaused cause is an explanation of one aspect of God, not a logical derivation. It cannot be logically proved to the intellect that there is an uncaused cause.

Regarding the idols, again a good point. But the thing emphasized here is that God is formless, beginningless, endless etc. Since the human mind cannot conceive of a formless Supreme, God is conceived of in the form as represented by an idol. The idol/cross in this case is not a photo of God but a representation of God.

Matter and energy - What do the scientists say about this? They don't have any answer, do they? Creation implies time and space and if God is beyond time and space, I guess it's futile to find an answer to what was before creation. Because there was no before creation. Time started at creation so there can't be a 'before creation'. By the way, can your intellect imagine beyond time and 3-dimensional space?

Fallon - If without reading you can classify something as "stupid", hats off to your "intelligence"! I'm not expecting any logical arguments from your kind anyway...

CAustin - Thanks. Please see above. I agree that "Uncaused Cause" can't be derived from "everything has a cause".

If you say time can go on backwards till infinity, I guess Science or Spirituality both will disagree :-)
Scientists themselves are having trouble explaining somethings with linear concept of time. Spiritual texts say time is not linear. Now Spiritual texts have also said that universe is one among many parallel universes, that truth is multi-dimensional, beyond the three dimensions of space and beyond time. They go on to say how old is this universe and also many other figures, which I don't have studied myself but Carl Sagan in Cosmos says they correspond to what is calculated scientifically. Regarding multi-dimensionality and parallel universes, science is still grappling with the formulas. Though science has not yet reached the levels to validate everything, slowly it is reaching there. Let's see. But I have plenty of reasons to believe the scriptures must be true!

Shawn B - whatever you have mentioned is already present in the text!

Answer 1

The first part of Swamiji's lesson involves a variation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The most common type of the cosmological argument, postulating a god as a “First Cause,” can be summarized thus:

Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.
The universe exists and began to exist.
The universe must have a cause.
The cause of the universe is God.

I do not know if there was a time when the universe did not exist followed by a time when the universe was brought into existence. Perhaps, perhaps not. I think the strongest criticism of the cosmological argument is that it doesn't really tell us anything. That there was a cause of the universe does not tell us that the cause still exists, that the cause has any regard for human life whatsoever or that the cause has any guidance to offer as to moral behavior.

Swamiji continues by saying that people cannot have knowledge of God, using the example of the battery torch. This is a good way to proceed, since I think the best criticism of his first argument lies in the fact that saying the universe has a cause tells us nothing about that which caused it. The problem is that here he stops.

Any religious discussion to the effect that God should be relied upon as a basis for moral behavior or should be revered as some sort of heroic, omnipotent or virtuous entity would seem to require more than Swamiji was prepared to offer. He talks of idol worship, essentially claiming that what we worship are images of God, reminders of a God we cannot know. The problem with that is that one could choose anything for that image, and the God that would be worshipped could require his followers to adopt any set of behaviors. After all, how can we know that what the idol demands is not what the real God would have wanted?

Swamiji is an effective speaker, but there are some arguments that cannot be refuted so easily. It is not enough to say that a prime mover exists without defining its characteristics. If there truly is a God, his characteristics should not be the the product of imagination. They should be the product of deduction and observation. Unfortunately, and most theists run into trouble here, this has not proven possible to this point in history.

Answer 2

I read it ..... it does not say anything new.

Now, For example,

Just because you do not know what is the originality of an item, you do not attribute it to an imaginary creature. This Guru did.

He mentioned just because your son is overseas and you cannot see your son, you have photograph to remember him. That is why there are idols or in christians' case cross. Now, had you actually seen the person the cross or the idols represent before or other then your "holy book" are there other non-bias proof? No? Then that is the difference. One is real, the other is imaginary.

The rest are just some morale preach, in which common sense.

So what's new?

-----

So RAJESH, if you cannot take the idea Matter and energy has already existed, perhaps you can tell me what created it? What created that creator then? Your argument defeats your own argument.

-------
Now RAJESH, can you put your concept of your uncaused cause onto Matter and Energy? When that is done, tell me if Matter and Energy can be already existed. If you cannot put your concept of your uncaused cause onto Matter and Energy, prove that uncaused cause is wrong and insert it onto your concept of your god, then tell me who created the uncaused cause.

Your argument, as said are all fallible. You used one concept onto one thing and used another concept onto another. That is hardly fair, isn't it?

Using the disclaimer the text says god are beyond human intellect are is a method of telling you "don't probe further into my lies". That hardly explain anything, except you do not have any answers, but refused to admit you are wrong. That is about all.

Answer 3

That's interesting. All it is, of course, is the "first cause" argument wrapped up in a verbose storytelling style, but I've always found the "first cause" argument interesting.

There are a couple things wrong with jumping from "first cause" to God, though. First, the one and ONLY thing this argument establishes (questionably at best) is that there was something that happened first. You can name this first cause something like the "Big Bang" which is informative and detailed, or you can give it a misleading name like "God" or "Bigfoot" or "Leprechauns" that uses language to try to trick yourself into thinking you've proved more than you actually have.

But it's important to recognize that the only thing this establishes, if you accept the argument, is that something happened first. If I go to court over someone's death and argue that something must have caused him to die, therefore Joe murdered him, then I'll get laughed at, and for good reason. The same should occur to us if someone tries to tell us that something must have caused the universe to exist, therefore it had to be sentient and all-powerful and timeless itself and could not itself have had a creator, sentient or otherwise.

The other problem is, of course, that the argument doesn't really prove anything, it just sort of hopes that the listener agrees. Suppose I argue that time can go backward ad infinitum, just like we expect it can go forward for infinity. Who's to say I'm wrong? We have no experience with infinite versus non-infinite universes upon which to base arguments. The statement that the universe must have had a beginning is exactly that: a statement, and nothing more. If I agree, fine. But if I don't agree, there's nothing else that can really be established.

It genuinely is an interesting argument, but it's not one that hasn't been addressed before, or a particularly effective one.

Answer 4

Never ceases to amaze me the ways believers try to qualify their beliefs and how they make excuses for their god. They make up their religion as they go along.

The standard contradiction: " It stands to reason that every effect must have had a cause prior to it. ... The cause must have emerged from a previous cause. GOD is now the first cause. The sole cause. The uncaused cause."

That statement alone is flawed. You cannot get from 'every effect has a cause' to 'god was first and nothing caused god, so therefore god put it all in motion'.

If everything that exists needs a creator then who/what created god? If god always existed then it is not true to say everything that exists needs a creator. Brings us back to prove there is a god. Because the universe is there is not proof.

... heard it all before.

Answer 5

The same god that us atheists call 'no god'. That Swami is clever, but can he say who caused the first cause? Calling it the Uncause Cause is disingenuous, for every thing after that suggests that there is no cause for anything that followed.

Had Ram suggested this the Swami would have been stumped.

Answer 6

As an Atheist, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Not to mention I also believe that I am right and you BETTER believe as I do! If you don't I will hunt you down and wag my finger at you and say, "BIBLE BELIEVER! BIBLE BELIEVER! BIBLE BELIEVER!"

Further I think ALL Christian arguments are DEMENTED.

Do they NOT realize that we Atheists KNOW everything?

I also believe that it is ok for me to pick and choose verses out of the Bible out of context! But don't you do it or I will point my finger at you!

<<

Answer 7

I don't think so.'cause I think God is the best. and I bleieve in God. Chicken is creautred by God. If there's no god who made the first chicken or egg in the world .

Answer 8

First cause argument. Boring. Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, hence the very very basic building blocks of "everything" have always existed. Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution, lots of human procreation, and BAM, here I am.

No need for any supernatural "first cause"... and even if there WAS a need (which there isn't), there's no telling that it's your god or anyone elses god that was "the first cause".

Answer 9

So you believe in a God? And you believe it explains the beginning of everything? That's fine.

...

But what's with religion?

Answer 10

I agree with Fallon: I've already had my USDA recommended amount of religious babble for today.