"atheists have failed to account for the "first cause" argument for God's existence."
I am a former pentecostal turned...to anything but religion. I am very grateful for seeing the truth opened up to me (by an atheist). I am trying to find my personal position. At present, I am assuredly agnostic, but leaning toward atheism altogether. I would love to hear what you all have to say regarding the quote/title of this thread.
The title is an excerpt from an article, "'Helter Skelter' author challenges God in his new book". In context it reads:
" The faithful take a beating in Bugliosi's book, but he doesn't spare atheists either.
"When I hear theists and atheists pontificating on how they know God does or does not exist, I can only smile at the irrationality and, yes, vanity of the notion," he writes.
Bugliosi believes that atheists have failed to account for the "first cause" argument for God's existence - that someone or something created the universe. "We know from our human experience that nothing in existence can give itself existence because if it did, then it would have to have preceded itself, an impossibility," he writes. "
The whole article is here:
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/27/2830053/helter-skelter-author-...
I look forward to your responses.
Brandon
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Luka Rek on -
I like epistemology, but this is not it. The colleague`s commentary above mine shows his attitude of extreme skepticism, which is not a very reasonable position. But to be able to accept certain things without going into every detail, we must have some kind of proof and that is why I answered with the similarities in our sensory organs and the brain.
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas on -
'why would we think that what holds for our experiences inside the universe holds for the universe ITSELF?' Very well said mate. I have been saying something of the sort by explaining that if time is contained within our universe (see theory of relativity and special relativity and such) then how can cause and effect exist. If there is no time, there is no before and after, throwing the whole need for a cause out the window.
Same argument, You say it much more succinctly though...
-
Permalink Reply by Rob McLean on -
In regards "who / what created god"? Maybe there's another god, it's not a trinity, it's a quadrolgy. There's the regular godly thing and then there's that gods bigger brother, the one that created the other god by magic. Still doesn't answer who or what created big brother god. I'm sure the god botherers would be over the moon with Two god things to worship. Twice as much worship, twice as much fun, twice as much wine and crackers and all for 20%!
-
Permalink Reply by Austin Rozzell on
-
I would think as far as the multi verse is concerned any thing is possible, stacked upon the improbable, right next to impossible, but underneath should of could of would of might. Now since perception is relative to the point of view. When the question is answered, the answered was already known by that which asked the question before it was asked, but not until it was.
Words of wade: Concerning the all of nothing.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
I find your views intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
-
Permalink Reply by Austin Rozzell on
-
I don't know of what news letter you are referring to Lady Heather :)
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremy Wells on -
I find it interesting how religious people always "prove" the existence of god by saying how did something come from nothing. They refute evolution by saying, "I find it nearly impossible that all of this could evolve from nothing." Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, but scientists conduct experiments and work to solve those questions daily. Religion doesn't bring any legitimate answers to the table when talking about the origins of life, they just cease to ask questions. Science gives us the best answers about how the universe and life on earth began and the evidence is insurmountable that the explanation offered by religious dogma is certainly far less likely.
What is more likely: 1) That some unknown cause occured that sparked the big bang, which would have meant that our universe started out as an infinitely small particle, and over billions of years expanded and cooled to the point where stars and planets could form. or 2) That an all powerful god instantly sprang into existence and created everything. When one thinks logically it is easy to see that probability is not on god's side. If one says that it is impossible for our universe to have come from nothing, how much more unlikely would it be that god came from nothing. I am fascinated by the universe and especially life here on earth and I find it appalling that so many people would choose religious dogma over evidence that has been criticized by every other scientist before being accepted. Science is changing constantly as more discoveries are made, but religion keeps using the same excuses it has for centuries and has yet to provide one valid piece of evidence to support its claims.
-
Permalink Reply by Ned Carter on -
That's because once you exhaust your one book, you pretty much have nothing else to bring to the table. How many unique Ideas can you possibly form from a finite source.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
Aquinas is supposed to have said "i fear the man of a single book" (hominem unius libri timeo)
-
Permalink Reply by David S. on -
The "First Cause" Argument refutes itself. It states that nothing can be the cause of it's own existence, or that everything is bound by causality, but then tries to make exception to that in the same breath. I'm sure others already pointed this out, but I didn't feel like wasting any more time on the 'First Cause' subject.
-
Permalink Reply by the.plush.screen on -
"we know of things that occur apparently completely uncaused."
Incorrect. ALL events in the verifiable universe are caused by the four fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces. ALL effects have a cause.
"radioactive decay is totally random. we can statistically analyze the rate of decay but the point at which any one atom decays to another is seemingly random and without cause. there's no reason that the atom decays just then."
Incorrect. Radiaocative decay is caused by an unstable or radioactive isotope. The process is well understood and half-lives are well known or, for example, Carbon-14 dating would be useless.
-
Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on -
Your corrections are perhaps personal opinions you are very convinced of, but they are incorrect.
It does not automatically follow from there being four known forces that all events are caused. The example given was quantum fluctuations I believe. This is a consequence of the Uncertainty Relation between energy (mass) and time, but a single event, like the creation and/or annihilation of a single virtual pair is entirely unpredictable and has itself no (preceding) cause.
Same goes for radioactive decay. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is a statistical concept. For example the half-life Carbon 14 is about 5730 years. But a single C-14 could decay in a day or a picosecond or carry on undisturbed for another 10.023 years.
There is a probability curve that peaks at 5730 years, so that on average with a (very) great number of C14 atoms you'll find that half of it has decayed after 5730 years. The decay of a single atom however is entirely unpredictable and without cause.
What's new today
Forum
insane comment following tornadoes in Oklahoma
Started by Ron Humphrey in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Stutz 1 minute ago. 17 Replies 1 Like
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
