The uncaused first cause

To be watched with sincerity...

A regarder avec sincérité...

[jphilc]

I'm not a scientist or a philosopher... but I hope someone smarter than myself can contend with this video more aptly. But here's my go at it: "One objection we hear from time to time is when we talk about this idea that we believe that this universe we live in is created then people will say, well then who created god?"

"That's a great question, it turns out to be a bad question because if you think about it long enough if God is uncreated then he didn't have a beginning.”

Notice the ‘if’. “IF” God is uncreated then he didn’t have a beginning. That’s assuming a whole lot, it’s basically saying “it’s a bad question because I’ve decided that the definition of God includes that he is uncreated.” Put another way I could say “Theists like to ask who created the Universe, but it’s a bad question, because if the Universe is uncreated then it didn’t have a beginning.” BUT! you’ll argue— we agree the Universe must have been created. Wrong— the Universe AS WE KNOW IT must have been created, but what came before, the vast something or nothing that preceded the current order could have just as easily been uncreated. Regardless, his comment is wildly logically fallacious and factually unsupported since there is NO reason beyond scripture to believe God is uncreated.


"Look, there has to be an uncaused first cause. There's two possibilities: either the universe is the uncaused first cause or something that is beyond the universe is the uncaused first cause and all the evidence shows, both the philosophical and scientific evidence, shows that space, matter, and time had a beginning in other words the universe had a cause, it had a beginning so it must have had a cause which means whatever's outside the universe must be spaceless timeless and immaterial must be that first cause.”


"Now if you're timeless do you have a cause? No you're eternal. So, whatever created the universe is the uncaused first cause it didn't have a beginning.”

This is also untrue. Simply because a thing does not have a cause does not mean it is eternal. Again, he’s engaging in misdirection by conflating the common term “timeless” with the idea of “forever” or “eternal.” Timeless, in physics, essentially means, occurring without concurrent observable entropy or motion. But in an empty universe, a thing can be timeless, but also have a finite existence. 

"You know what amazes me too Bobby, that a lot of atheists have a lot of trouble believing in an eternal God yet for centuries they believed in an eternal universe, and they had no problem believing in an eternal universe but somehow when an eternal god comes up they go "oh that can't be””

This speaks to the power of science over religion. Scientists did believe in an eternal universe, in the sense that they believed it always existed in the state we currently observe it in. However, unlike ignorant religious individuals, as our ability to observe that universe expanded we adapted our understanding to what we found. Scientists don’t have an issue with an eternal God because of the word eternal, they have an issue with an eternal God because the God portion is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Because the concept of “God” is loaded down with magical mythical stories of him raining fire and brimstone down, of having intention and will and exacting punishment. 

"no-- the evidence points to the fact that it can be, in fact there has to be something that is eternal. Even Aristotle knew this, there has to be an unmoved mover.”

Again, incorrect. There isn’t a need for something eternal, but there is a need for something to be FIRST. Just because something existed BEFORE doesn’t mean it existed forever, nor does it mean it exists now. It’s quite possible that the forces that gave rise to the universe no longer exist as they did then… thus they are not eternal at all.

[smittymanjensen]

My problem is not believing in a God but more a personal anthropomorphic deity