CreateDebate


Debate Info

21
30
Yes, because... No, because...
Debate Score:51
Arguments:60
Total Votes:51
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because... (20)
 
 No, because... (29)

Debate Creator

zephyr20x6(2386) pic



Is there anything that can justify god being the first cause?

Thomas Aquinas whom attempted to come up with 5 ways to prove god, this will be concerning the second way. The cosmological argument, most people know this argument as "everything needs to go back to a beginning cause, therefore god is that cause" where the typical counter-argument is "where did god come from?". However Thomas Aquinas, and other philosophers argue that because we have only observed sensible things, and our logic as to all things needing a cause has only been observed in sensible (sensible meaning to be able to touch, taste, see, hear, and smell) objects, thus this logic doesn't apply to the insensible, ergo if god is insensible, then god doesn't need a first cause. Another argument I have heard is "god exists outside of our universe where logic and reason doesn't apply to god. If you have any other "justifications" for god being a first cause (whether you agree with them or not) post it as either supporting your argument, or post it and refute it. 

Yes, because...

Side Score: 21
VS.

No, because...

Side Score: 30

I see God as a potential being outside of space-time. If he is outside of space-time then he is not bound by any laws or space, or by any laws of time. He cannot have a beginning since that follows laws regarding time, and he cannot have an end since that also follows laws regarding. He can only be there eternally existing at any, and all time, and that itself is still too complex since that notion itself needs time to explain the lack of time. He also cannot end since there is nothing to cause him to decay or run out of energy since those both follow laws regarding space.

Side: Yes, because...
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
1 point

I see God as a potential being outside of space-time. If he is outside of space-time then he is not bound by any laws or space, or by any laws of time. e cannot have a beginning since that follows laws regarding time, and he cannot have an end since that also follows laws regarding. He can only be there eternally existing at any, and all time, and that itself is still too complex since that notion itself needs time to explain the lack of time. He also cannot end since there is nothing to cause him to decay or run out of energy since those both follow laws regarding space.

Under what reasoning does god have to be a being? or conscious? or intelligent? If something outside of space-time is not bound by laws, then why can't this first cause be anything? Why can't the first cause simply be the outside of space-time?

Side: No, because...
1 point

Under what reasoning does god have to be a being?

If the notion is that he is the cause of Creation and we are intelligent we can infer that only intelligence can create intelligence. So God would have to be some sort of being. Possibly beyond conception since being involves space.

If something outside of space-time is not bound by laws, then why can't this first cause be anything?

It probably could be "anything", but as far as I know only intelligence can create intelligence and below.

Why can't the first cause simply be the outside of space-time?

What is the outside of space-time? Describe it.

Side: Yes, because...
Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

Well...I mean, you could justify it, just not conclusively until G comes down and gives us a blood test or something...The biggest problem with the first cause argument is that it defeats itself until it breaks its own rules.

"Everything has an origin"

"Okay.."

"Therefore God!"

"But...if everything has an origin...what is God's origin?"

"He doesn't have one. He is eternal. That's how how he created everything"

"So...not everything has an origin then?"

"No. Everything except God has an origin"

"So....not EVERYTHING has an origin then?"

"Except for God, yes..."

"So...not EVERYTHING? I mean, you believe God is real, so he is something. You believe that this something is eternal, and does not need to be created. So, if I understand you correctly, the only way that something can exist is if something that has no origin starts the whole process...but...that something is not subject to those same rules? The only way the original premise is correct is....if it is false...."

Side: No, because...
Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

If we justify anything to be the first cause, there also needs to be reason to call this first cause god, not just justify a first cause.

If we justify god by making god insensible, then we can't apply any logic to the insensible if we can't apply the logic of cause-and-effect on it, because we haven't observed the "insensible". What reason is there to think that the insensible is conscious? A being at all? Why does it have to be god? If the insensible isn't excluded from needing a cause then the insensible doesn't need to be intelligent to create intelligent things, nor can we say that cause-and-effect in its entirety needs a cause-and-effect, if the insensible can possibly not need a cause from not being observed, then cause-and-effect doesn't need a cause if the entirety of cause-and-effect hasn't been observed. If it is not because the insensible hasn't been observed that we conclude it doesn't necessarily need a cause, then the we still have to tie the insensible not needing a cause by connecting cause-and-effect to only the sensible. Same with god being outside of the universe, if god is justified as the first cause by being outside our universe and thus not having logic applicable to it, then what logic can we use to conclude whatever is outside of the universe, needing to be conscious, or a being? If logic doesn't apply outside our universe, then why couldn't this "outside of our universe" not have created the universe?

Side: No, because...
Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

I understand all of this. Its not exactly new, now is it?

What I'm saying is that the original premise cannot be reconciled without invalidating itself. And if the premise isn't valid, the specific need for God isn't.

Soooo....what about energy?

Side: No, because...
1 point

Yes, the first cause is God, no matter if you are athiest, thiest what ever, however God is not what you religous people think, God is the point is which exsistance happen

Side: Yes, because...
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
1 point

Whatever this first cause is though, would also need a cause no?

Side: No, because...
1 point

Yes and that cause and the cause before that on and so on, to me God is just a title in which all things came to be, God is not what thiest made him to be, if that makes any sense.

Side: No, because...

Everything in our universe is material and bound by time and space. Our universe since the beginning has been these as well. Asking for a cause "before" a given timeline is tricky because there is no "before" without time. Even if you have another physical cause, you are simply adding another event to the timeline. So the cause must be outside time. The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE. Our observation of "cause and effect" has only been observed with material things and not immaterial things. Even immaterial things like emotions are caused by materiel chemicals. However we have never observed a purely immaterial substance because we our material beings. So we have no reason to conclude a immaterial being needs a cause or not. So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.

Side: Yes, because...
Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

Thomas Aquinas's argument is more along the lines of

"Everything SENSIBLE has an origin"

"therefore anything insensible doesn't necessarily have an origin"

"therefore the first cause is insensibility, and that is god"

I think the insensibility justification is bullshit as it is simply a means to allow god to bypass logic. Not only that, but if the only criteria for something not needing a cause is not being able to be sensed, then this would apply to the whole chain of cause-and-effect, since we can't sense the whole chain of cause-and-effect in it's entirety. We can at the most only sense all the way back to the big bang, then we can't sense anything before that, we can't detect anything before that, so everything before that wouldn't be sensible right?

Side: No, because...
Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

Nothing you are saying is wrong, however you missed my point, although you high lighted it, presumably by accident.

Like you said, The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE.

The whole concept is paradoxical. One way to step outside of the paradox (not the only one but the most obvious one) is to establish an item that is not to subject to the premise. But the instant you did that you invalidated the whole premise in the first place. You started with "everything needs a cause" and then promptly established an exception, so the opening premise is false.

The best we can do is establish a placeholder variable. Something outside of spacetime. You have not established any other properties however. Since the rule has to be broken at least once to avoid paradox, you have no way of knowing that it wasn't broken a billion other times. You certainly have no way of knowing that it is conscious or possessed of any other attributes associated with God. So yeah, God could be the variable, but for all we know a piece of timeless cosmic lint could be the variable. A black hole could be. Hell, I could be and just forgot because it was soooo long ago and I smoked to much pot in the 90s.

Meanwhile, we have a candidate that is also timeless and was around in abundance during the big bang...energy.

Side: No, because...
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

I did not say everything needs a cause. I said material things need a cause which God is not.

Energy while it is "timeless" in a sense, it is still subject to time. I mean think about it. You have potential energy, which is bound by time because it is the energy stored in a system at a precise moment in time. Kinetic energy is the amount of energy being used by a system at a specific moment in time. Other concepts that are related to energy are also related to time. For example power is work divided by time, or in simple terms, how much work can be done in a specific amount of TIME. Momentum is mass multiplied by velocity. What is velocity? The length a particle or object travels in relation to TIME. See all energy is, is an ability to do something, and in that action, time is needed no matter how small amount of time it is, it is still time.

Side: Yes, because...
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
1 point

So the cause must be outside time.

How can a cause exist outside of space-time, if there is no space or time for it to exist within? If there is no "before", then how can there be anything before time, to cause time?

So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.

But why does this immaterial first cause need to be god? If the immaterial doesn't need a cause because we haven't observed the immaterial, then the immaterial can't have any other logic applied to it either, because we haven't observed any other logic to apply to the immaterial, basically ridding any reason to think this immaterial first cause needs to be a being.

Side: No, because...
2 points

Well...I mean, you could justify it, just not conclusively until G comes down and gives us a blood test or something...The biggest problem with the first cause argument is that it defeats itself until it breaks its own rules.

"Everything has an origin"

"Okay.."

"Therefore God!"

"But...if everything has an origin...what is God's origin?"

"He doesn't have one. He is eternal. That's how how he created everything"

"So...not everything has an origin then?"

"No. Everything except God has an origin"

"So....not EVERYTHING has an origin then?"

"Except for God, yes..."

"So...not EVERYTHING? I mean, you believe God is real, so he is something. You believe that this something is eternal, and does not need to be created. So, if I understand you correctly, the only way that something can exist is if something that has no origin starts the whole process...but...that something is not subject to those same rules? The only way the original premise is correct is....if it is false...."

Side: No, because...

Thomas Aquinas's argument is more along the lines of

"Everything SENSIBLE has an origin"

"therefore anything insensible doesn't necessarily have an origin"

"therefore the first cause is insensibility, and that is god"

I think the insensibility justification is bullshit as it is simply a means to allow god to bypass logic. Not only that, but if the only criteria for something not needing a cause is not being able to be sensed, then this would apply to the whole chain of cause-and-effect, since we can't sense the whole chain of cause-and-effect in it's entirety. We can at the most only sense all the way back to the big bang, then we can't sense anything before that, we can't detect anything before that, so everything before that wouldn't be sensible right?

Side: No, because...

if the only criteria for something not needing a cause is not being able to be sensed, then this would apply to the whole chain of cause-and-effect, since we can't sense the whole chain of cause-and-effect in it's entirety.

I love the way you think :)

And sensibility, regardless if we are talking empirically or conceptually, is probably not anything we should be using as criteria for such conversations since it is automatically limited by our perceptive or cognitive abilities, which are certainly not infinite. Besides, energy is sensible, and we do not currently believe that it has an origin in the normal sense.

Side: No, because...
Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

Everything in our universe is material and bound by time and space. Our universe since the beginning has been these as well. Asking for a cause "before" a given timeline is tricky because there is no "before" without time. Even if you have another physical cause, you are simply adding another event to the timeline. So the cause must be outside time. The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE. Our observation of "cause and effect" has only been observed with material things and not immaterial things. Even immaterial things like emotions are caused by materiel chemicals. However we have never observed a purely immaterial substance because we our material beings. So we have no reason to conclude a immaterial being needs a cause or not. So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.

Side: Yes, because...
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

Nothing you are saying is wrong, however you missed my point, although you high lighted it, presumably by accident.

Like you said, The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE.

The whole concept is paradoxical. One way to step outside of the paradox (not the only one but the most obvious one) is to establish an item that is not to subject to the premise. But the instant you did that you invalidated the whole premise in the first place. You started with "everything needs a cause" and then promptly established an exception, so the opening premise is false.

The best we can do is establish a placeholder variable. Something outside of spacetime. You have not established any other properties however. Since the rule has to be broken at least once to avoid paradox, you have no way of knowing that it wasn't broken a billion other times. You certainly have no way of knowing that it is conscious or possessed of any other attributes associated with God. So yeah, God could be the variable, but for all we know a piece of timeless cosmic lint could be the variable. A black hole could be. Hell, I could be and just forgot because it was soooo long ago and I smoked to much pot in the 90s.

Meanwhile, we have a candidate that is also timeless and was around in abundance during the big bang...energy.

Side: No, because...

If we justify anything to be the first cause, there also needs to be reason to call this first cause god, not just justify a first cause.

If we justify god by making god insensible, then we can't apply any logic to the insensible if we can't apply the logic of cause-and-effect on it, because we haven't observed the "insensible". What reason is there to think that the insensible is conscious? A being at all? Why does it have to be god? If the insensible isn't excluded from needing a cause then the insensible doesn't need to be intelligent to create intelligent things, nor can we say that cause-and-effect in its entirety needs a cause-and-effect, if the insensible can possibly not need a cause from not being observed, then cause-and-effect doesn't need a cause if the entirety of cause-and-effect hasn't been observed. If it is not because the insensible hasn't been observed that we conclude it doesn't necessarily need a cause, then the we still have to tie the insensible not needing a cause by connecting cause-and-effect to only the sensible. Same with god being outside of the universe, if god is justified as the first cause by being outside our universe and thus not having logic applicable to it, then what logic can we use to conclude whatever is outside of the universe, needing to be conscious, or a being? If logic doesn't apply outside our universe, then why couldn't this "outside of our universe" not have created the universe?

Side: No, because...

I totes give this a thumbs up! But I think logic can touch on certain areas of God. God's existence as a "first cause" is only a possibility. I would imagine that anything that is created outside of space-time will be eternal, so maybe the universe is eternal, but the contents inside can decay or maybe they just changed. Maybe time doesn't even exist. I like have no clue, but these are just somethings I think about.

Side: No, because...

I totes give this a thumbs up!

Well thanks :) .

Side: No, because...
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Who said anything about logic not applying outside of the universe? Is logic not itself insensible? If the universe were to disappear, would logic still be present? Of course it would be! Moreover, if the first cause had to be outside of the universe, then you can only be 2 things: an abstract object, like numbers and concepts, or a type of mind that is outside of space and time. It cannot be the former, since those things don't cause, they only simply are, which means the latter follows. And if this being is existent, then it had to create the universe, which tells me that it is at least extremely powerful.

Side: Yes, because...
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
1 point

Who said anything about logic not applying outside of the universe?

Well the specific argument you are responding to, if I am not mistaken, is not about the outside of the universe but the insensible. Insensible =/= outside of the universe necessarily, though I suppose everything outside the universe would be insensible. Here is the thing though, with this argument it is made that all sensible things observed, they all need a cause, however insensible things don't. I do not understand how the conclusion of such is made. This only makes logical sense, if cause-and-effect was somehow tied to the sensible, and only the sensible, by that I mean, it is BECAUSE things are sensible that they need a cause. Unless there is a reason that sensible things need causes but not insensible things, then I can only speculate that the reasoning behind this conclusion is based on the lack of observance of the insensible. We have only been able to observe the sensible, not the insensible, thus we can conclude that sensible things need a cause, because all sensible things we've observed had needed a cause, however we can't conclude that about insensible things, because we can't observe insensible things. If that is the thought process behind sensible things needing a cause, but not the insensible, then we can't apply any other logic or laws to the insensible, thus all logic and reason go out the window. If that is the case, we can't conclude that insensible objects need to be intelligent to create intelligence, or have things act "intelligently". If using the insensible justification for god being the first cause, then the entirety of cause and effect could be justified this way since it too is insensible.

Is logic not itself insensible? If the universe were to disappear, would logic still be present? Of course it would be!

Well, while I don't think you are necessarily defending the "insensible" argument I am talking about (which was presented to me in philosophy, although the more research I try to do on it, the more I find that nobody else has been holding this argument or justification.) For the sensible/insensible justification, this would do it injustice, as then logic could be the first cause, it being insensible doesn't need a cause.

Moreover, if the first cause had to be outside of the universe, then you can only be 2 things: an abstract object, like numbers and concepts, or a type of mind that is outside of space and time. It cannot be the former, since those things don't cause, they only simply are, which means the latter follows.

Wouldn't logic be an abstract concept, as it is merely the means of making sense of something, it is conceptual in nature. I do not see how any of this follows, if the first cause is outside of space time, then how does that make everything else only two things, abstract or a type of mind outside of the universe?

And if this being is existent, then it had to create the universe, which tells me that it is at least extremely powerful.

I would agree with that, it would have to have some degree of potency.

Side: No, because...
Hitler(2364) Disputed
1 point

Everything in our universe is material and bound by time and space. Our universe since the beginning has been these as well. Asking for a cause "before" a given timeline is tricky because there is no "before" without time. Even if you have another physical cause, you are simply adding another event to the timeline. So the cause must be outside time. The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE. Our observation of "cause and effect" has only been observed with material things and not immaterial things. Even immaterial things like emotions are caused by materiel chemicals. However we have never observed a purely immaterial substance because we our material beings. So we have no reason to conclude a immaterial being needs a cause or not. So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.

Side: Yes, because...

No one was there to witness the creation of the world. It is impossible to think of the cause.

Side: No, because...