Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
*nods sagely*
Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
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?There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
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.
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.
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
No, it's what you are engaging in.
Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.
It's simple logic. If you cannot follow this simple logic, then you are unable to understand even rudimentary concepts.
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?
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???
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)..