A logical, simple truth with profound meaning

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
25,000
Reaction score
4,845
Points
290
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.

*nods sagely*
 

gulfman

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
861
Reaction score
560
Points
920
And,if you had done anything without any restictions on you not to do so.would you have still done so or not?
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.

*nods sagely*
The prevailing theory is that the first event to occur in our universe was the "big bang". Who or what caused it?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,616
Reaction score
3,092
Points
1,130
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
47,069
Reaction score
11,839
Points
2,060
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
Indeed. When you work back to a beginning, there must be cause.

What created the state of existence? It could not have come from nothing, because with nothing, nothing exists.
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?
It's simple logic. If you cannot follow this simple logic, then you are unable to understand even rudimentary concepts.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,251
Reaction score
11,864
Points
2,030
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
There are some "initial conditions" that we dont yet have the tools to measure or observe or explain. And all that needs to be taken on faith.

Just as the Big Bang itself needs to be actually taken on faith.. Because no scientist can rationalize all of the energy, matter in the universe existing at a single point in space. Not with a trillion stars, a billion celestial bodies and all the energy needed to create them and put them in their place in an infinite universe.
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
An objective person might likely believe that it's likely that there is an intelligent being outside of our universe that is that "uncaused cause". Atheists will argue that, unless one can prove that the aforementioned "intelligent being outside of our universe" exists, that it can then be assumed that no such being actually exists. They'll say "we don't know" but that doesn't mean it was "God". Atheists demand absolute PROOF. In many things in life, decisions are made on information that falls short of that doctrine. There is the concept of "the preponderance of the evidence", which atheists presumably accept in all other facets of life, but not when it comes to the possibility of "God". Atheists will then, often times, mock believers with the "sky fairy" rhetoric while simultaneously accepting any theory so long as it doesn't involve the possibility of an intelligent creator.
 
Last edited:
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
There are some "initial conditions" that we dont yet have the tools to measure or observe or explain. And all that needs to be taken on faith.

Just as the Big Bang itself needs to be actually taken on faith.. Because no scientist can rationalize all of the energy, matter in the universe existing at a single point in space. Not with a trillion stars, a billion celestial bodies and all the energy needed to create them and put them in their place in an infinite universe.
Faith is the key word. But logic tells us that there HAD to be an uncaused cause, aka "the first cause". Something, or someone, had to give that first domino (so to speak) that initial push to get it all started. Does anyone here deny this?

 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
47,069
Reaction score
11,839
Points
2,060
An objective person might likely believe that it's likely that there is an intelligent being outside of our universe that is that "uncaused cause". Atheists will argue that, unless one can prove that the aforementioned "intelligent being outside of our universe" exists, that it can then be assumed that no such being actually exists. They'll say "we don't know" but that doesn't mean it was "God". Atheists demand absolute PROOF. In many things in life, decisions are made on information that falls short of that doctrine. There is the concept of "the preponderance of the evidence", which atheists presumably exist in all other facets of life, but not when it comes to the possibility of "God". They'll then, often times, mock believers with the "sky fairy" rhetoric while simultaneously accepting any theory so long as it doesn't involve the possibility of an intelligent creator.
Those who believe in nothing believe in anything.
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
Crepitus

Delusional denial of a simple, logical truth.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,616
Reaction score
3,092
Points
1,130
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?
It's simple logic. If you cannot follow this simple logic, then you are unable to understand even rudimentary concepts.
Heh... no, you haven't employed logic at all. You've simply made an unsupported claim.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,251
Reaction score
11,864
Points
2,030
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
There are some "initial conditions" that we dont yet have the tools to measure or observe or explain. And all that needs to be taken on faith.

Just as the Big Bang itself needs to be actually taken on faith.. Because no scientist can rationalize all of the energy, matter in the universe existing at a single point in space. Not with a trillion stars, a billion celestial bodies and all the energy needed to create them and put them in their place in an infinite universe.
Faith is the key word. But logic tells us that there HAD to be an uncaused cause, aka "the first cause". Something, or someone, had to give that first domino (so to speak) that initial push to get it all started. Does anyone here deny this?

Could be that any theory of initial cause is just waiting for time and space to catch up to us. Could be a rare stochastic event. (random).. Things that LOOK like "initial cause" in a big space like an infinite universe of possibilities, are just "shit waiting to happen".. And on a human time scale, you never get to witness these things -- erego -- they don't exist.

We're pretty arrogant about the stuff we DONT know. Think that everything should be apparent. But we've only walked upright for 100 Million years with a brain and only had formalized investigation methods for 1000 years.

How many "initial causes" that we postulated such as the Big Bang have been REPEATED and just not yet been observed???
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
You see? Atheists go into contortions to avoid accepting even a simple truth. The potential, theological ramifications are too much for the atheists to accept such a simple truth. Hence, the nonsensical responses of dblack and Crepitus Enjoy!

 
Last edited:
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
There are some "initial conditions" that we dont yet have the tools to measure or observe or explain. And all that needs to be taken on faith.

Just as the Big Bang itself needs to be actually taken on faith.. Because no scientist can rationalize all of the energy, matter in the universe existing at a single point in space. Not with a trillion stars, a billion celestial bodies and all the energy needed to create them and put them in their place in an infinite universe.
Faith is the key word. But logic tells us that there HAD to be an uncaused cause, aka "the first cause". Something, or someone, had to give that first domino (so to speak) that initial push to get it all started. Does anyone here deny this?

Could be that any theory of initial cause is just waiting for time and space to catch up to us. Could be a rare stochastic event. (random).. Things that LOOK like "initial cause" in a big space like an infinite universe of possibilities, are just "shit waiting to happen".. And on a human time scale, you never get to witness these things -- erego -- they don't exist.

We're pretty arrogant about the stuff we DONT know. Think that everything should be apparent. But we've only walked upright for 100 Million years with a brain and only had formalized investigation methods for 1000 years.

How many "initial causes" that we postulated such as the Big Bang have been REPEATED and just not yet been observed???
Do you believe that the universe has always existed? I believe the evidence that's been presented thus far is that the universe had a beginning.

In my view, the universe is a realm. I believe that this "realm" was created. It's really no different than a computer programmer who created a video game with a bunch of characters inside of that game that call the place of their existence "the universe". And, like us, those video game characters are confined to their universe and are unable to view anything beyond it and, hence, they cannot demonstrate whether or not there is something beyond said universe.

For me, the "preponderance" of the evidence suggests a creator but, no, I cannot prove it.
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
Could be that any theory of initial cause is just waiting for time and space to catch up to us. Could be a rare stochastic event. (random)..
I didn't directly respond to your point here, so please allow me to do so.

Ultimately, the question becomes, how did existence come into, well, existence? Anything is possible, presumably, with existence. But, if there is no existence, then nothing can exist to "cause" anything, correct?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top