The First Cause argument, A Critical Analysis Part 1

[sailornaruto39]

this is kind of contradicting.

so everything has a cause besides what started it all? But then why does it have to be god?

no first cause no existence? that makes no sense. we are here now aren't we?

[penquingirl108]

Who is the man talking?

[Forkroute]

So why can't the universe create itself if god can? also 'everything' means what? Each individual has a cause, each has a single cause, or the totality of things has a cause?

[metalorg]

@Forkroute I don't think the premise in the argument was that a God can create himself but that no one created him because he exists outside of time and space in another dimension exactly to avoid the problem in your first sentence. I think in 'causality' everything has one or more interwoven causes.

I think they try to define the totality of things having to have one single cause because that helps their argument but there's no reason to do that.

[47saeed]

The Rabbit is the first cause it’s a magic rabbit nothing above it nothing below it explains everything.

[StAndAl0neCompl3x]

To say that existence must have once had a cause is to argue that existence, at one point, did not exist - which is contradictory and absurd. Existence exists. That is an axiom. What is could never have not been. "Back to basics" rationalism is a good way to approach the idiotic "first cause" argument. To assume that existence ever NOT existed (which is ridiculous) also violates the basic rational and physical law of no creation ex nihilo. Anyone ever heard of Parmenides? =)

[metalorg]

@StAndAl0neCompl3x I don't think the issue was that existence itself as an ethereal concept having a cause, but his premise was our existence and everything tangible's existence has a cause. He doesn't seem to understand that all the stuff anything is made of is just a changed form of energy and matter that always has been there. He wants to define the first cause as a creation event but fails. There are many issues with first cause as an argument for a monotheism.

[StAndAl0neCompl3x]

@metalorg. Well, I don't know if he realizes this, but he must be implying that existence "as an ethereal concept" has a cause, otherwise if he is only saying OUR existence or only material existence has a first cause, that does in no way imply a God, does it? After all, we could just as well be the product of a "first" physical, inorganic cause. He must mean that if he's arguing for a being that is supposed to exist outside of space and time (which is absolutely meaningless).

[StAndAl0neCompl3x]

So yes, I still feel that IS the issue. You're right, he does fail to define the first cause as a creation event - as anyone wishing to remain within the rules of logic I think would. And yes, first cause is almost as miserable an argument as other monotheistic ones.

[usedbrain]

Are we to understand that the law of cause and effect applies to everything EXCEPT the beginning of the universe?

[metalorg]

I wouldn't call 'cause and effect' a scientific law. I wouldn't say it applies to everything. Since the philisophical idea of cause and effect is dependent on time, it doesn't apply to the beginning of time.

[army103]

Regarding the book analogy, the complaint seems to be that if you postulate existence is eternal and without a beginning, that means a beginning doesn't exist...and that is somehow an absurdity.

Peter Kreeft can kiss the fattest part of my ass.

[lardchef]

i know the truth

[mattyabsley]

There are so many flaws in this guys argument, plus you are right about this guys voice. Sounds sooooo annoying. Bit like a Kent Hovind. Talk fast and hope no one spots the problems with it. This would of been interesting if argued from a devils advocate position but it was entirely constructed to prove god. If you replace God with Aliens then the argument remains the same. Replace our universe as part of the a multiverse and the argument remains the same when arguing who created the multiverse.

[1nedward]

Well who/what created the universe can never really be a scientific question because who is right and who is wrong is for the most part where your faith lies. If you believe the big bang or if you believe God (as I do) created the universe you are taking it by faith.

[mattyabsley]

1nedward - Don't tell me what i am taking on faith and what i am taking on evidence/fact. FACT is that the universe underwent a huge explosion some 14.5 billion years ago which resulted in ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AROUND US THAT ALLOWS US TO KNOW THIS. Where does the faith rest in knowledge? If it's true, it's true. There is no leap of faith here...

[hewpiedawg]

Heh. Good job. That stupid thing about cause making "beings" different from numbers wholly specious. Each integer has an integer before it, thus the number line really is analagous to the cause and effect argument. Anyway, I still fail to see why the universe be its own first cause. If god can do it, can't the universe?

[TheIllegit]

Can you be your own father? Can a basketball dribble a person? Postulating a natural cause to nature is similarly circular and nonsensical.

[1nedward]

If God can do it, can't the universe? No, because you would be assuming that something that is finite could be be its own cause. God, because of his very nature could CAUSE the universe to come into existence. However the universe which is made up of matter and energy and subject to the laws of thermodynamics(energy can not be created or destroyed) is not supposed to have a cause yet we exist so we know that something caused the universe to happen.

[hewpiedawg]

With regard to your reference to the first law of thermodynamics, I don't even have to reference uncertainty or relativity, just Newtonian physics. Note that gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity. It grows more negative the closer an object gets to a gravitational source, but it is negative nontheless. It is entirely possible that the negative gravitational potential energy of the universe cancels out the positive energy and that the total energy of the system is zero.

[1nedward]

Einstein proved that Newton was wrong in the way he imagined gravity.

[hewpiedawg]

But kinetic energy is still energy. When a rock falls in a gravitation field, it gains kinetic energy, because it accelerates. Do you think that kinetic energy is just created from nothing? That would contradict your original post. No, in exchange for an increase in kinetic energy, the rock loses potential energy. Gravitational potential energy is still a valid concept, and the quantity, -Gmm'/r, is even embedded in General Relativity's gravitational metric.

[hewpiedawg]

Actually, the m' winds up being canceled out... so the term used in the GR is actually -Gm/r. The black hole radius is actually at the point where this term equals -1. Interestingly, the black hole radius is the same in GR as it would be in Newtonian physics (if you look at it as the point at which the escape velocity would be the speed of light.)

[1nedward]

1. Black holes are a phenomenon that has been discovered relatively recently and is theoretical. We can only learn what a black hole is based on what it is not.

2. Gravity (according to Einstein) is not a pulling force but happens when two objects warp the fabric of space/time around each other.

3.Yes. although one law of thermodynamics state that energy can not be created or destroyed the other law of thermodynamics states that energy can change form.

[1nedward]

Although Newton might be a good place to start learning about gravity, inertia, action/reaction relationship, etc. I think that his theories have been taken farther. This especially pertains to energy and matter.

[cyxgun]

The doodles in this video are hilarious.

[MABUS01]

He betrays causality by merely claiming a first cause. The argument is absurd and should be insulting to anyone that listens.

[Harvey2face123]

What an idiot, "Everything needs a cause, so there must be a first cause. That cause has to be God. Some people ask, 'Then what caused to happen?' But God doesn't need a cause to come into existence because he caused himself come into existence. Cause, cause, cause, first cause, cause, cause, supreme being, cause, first cause, because cause causes things to cause because first cause."

[99trow]

infinite = anything that doesn't need a cause because they have always ceased to exist.

Finite= everything that needs a cause because they have a specific beginning and ending.

Really he should be saying that everything finite needs a prior cause..............the cause can be finite OR an infinite.

So finite can create other finite and the finite can come from prior finite........but eventually an infinite will have to cease to exist or else the finite will never cease to exist.

[TheIllegit]

The beginning stuff he said was on point, but he leaves out some basic stuff, and gets real convoluted in the middle. Like the reason there can't be infinite time is because we know that there isn't from General Relativity, and his explanation of why there can't be doesn't make sense. Also the reason that God would not need a cause is because he would exist outside of time itself (since we know when time itself began), where causality isn't necessary.

[hewpiedawg]

It is not a direct consequence of General Relativity that time is not infinite. It depends on what value you plug into the Cosmological Constant. Space-time could be positively curved, like a sphere; it could be flat; or it could be negatively curved. If the curvature of space-time is zero or negative, then it is indeed infinite. It is a matter of observation that leads us to conclude that space-time is positively curved.

[TheIllegit]

True, I should have said 'from General Relativity + subsequent observation', but that doesn't really change the point that I'm making.

[brains06]

THIS ROCKS.

[GBCE]

he never explained why God does not need a cause.

[metalorg]

I think he was trying to explain the other way around.

He's trying to prove that there has to be a first cause which doesn't need a cause- and then he assumes that it is God because it sounds like a similar idea to him.

[Inferfire]

If God needs a cause then it would not be God, it would be the product of a first cause.

[metalorg]

You're assuming "First cause = God".

If you imagine that there is a creator of this universe who made all of the stars and planets with his magic and is watching over everything, telling everyone how to live. Then you find out that he was created by another guy, the real first cause, who made him to make the universe because he was too lazy.

Would you worship the creator of the creator of the universe?

This is like a fun brain exercise that shows that 'first cause' doesn't have to equal 'God'.

[TheIllegit]

"This is like a fun brain exercise that shows that 'first cause' doesn't have to equal 'God'. " - not really. if we define God as the 'supernatural creator of the universe' - then God must be the first cause.

Additionally, he would NOT need a first cause, as he would exist outside of time (or inside infinite time) where causality itself does not necessarilly even exist as we understand it.

[dwoodall8979]

good point

[GBart]

Also, at 6:49:

"transcendent" necessarily

"eternal" "immortal" - same thing, also not predicted or required by his reasoning

"uncaused" "self-existing" "independent" same thing, also part of the definition, necessarily if there is a first cause.

"all perfect" ...? What? That doesn't follow from anything. "Being" ...? In the sense that gravity is a "being", or a muon neutrino is a "being"? I suppose.

[GBart]

He doesa horrible job of explaining why an infinite regression of causes (say, a big bang-big crunch oscillation, or a complex recursion of baby universes) is unacceptable, and he doesn't seem to be aware of the uncertainty principle. The first cause is an assumption because we don't know of anything that doesn't have a cause (excepting of course quantum fluctuations, but let's assume that this has to do with interacitons on higher dimensions), but I wouldn't call it God, because that implies...

[GBart]

other attributes, like intelligence or will. Those necessarily cannot be applied to a first cause because intelligence is NOT something that can be uncaused because it is too complex. Even if we assumed that there was a first cause, and that it was somehow intelligent, then it still doesn't fit most definitions of "God" because its intent was definitely not life, or humanity, given the size and contents of the universe. That also doesn't tell us whether that "god" still exists...

[GBart]

This guy is completely inconsistent and nonsensical.

First Cause Argument = Super duper fail.

[dwoodall8979]

How do you know the intent was not life?

[GBart]

Do you have any idea how small the fraction is of the matter/energy in the universe that will ever be alive? Are you full aware just how completely lethal the vast majority of the universe is? If the universe was designed for life, it was a pretty crappy design.

[dwoodall8979]

It might seem crappy, but that doesn't mean that it is. The fact that life is an extremely minute part of the universe, doesn't mean the universe wasn't meant to lead to life.

[GBart]

I think it's minute enough that it does. The other half of that though, that's perhaps more important is that just about everything else in the universe is 100% lethal.

[PeopleNotTalking]

dude, you're awesome, please keep making videos.. (subscribed)

[BoogieNite77]

HAHAHA HARRRRD!!!! u rock

[Requiem4aGod]

Whatever the effect, I would likely enjoy being the cause.

[Suorrel]

interesting

[gokucow]

Nicely animated and VERY funny.