How do atheists get around first cause?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

"There are some who, failing to find God by observation, conclude that there is no God and that this world of wonders made itself, or existed from everlasting. They are like a man who, seeing a beautifully written letter, should suppose that It had written itself without a writer, or had always existed. People in this state of mind are so far gone in error that it is of little use to argue with them." - Al-Ghazali

When hearing this the average atheist will always say: "But but but, then what created God?!" If you take three seconds to think, you will see that the argument mentioned above cannot possibly be made because if there was no first cause, then nothing would ever exist..

Then there are those who try to make an infinite regression of multiverses sound plausible but this dodges the issue of what triggered that chain to begin with..

The closest thing to atheism that actually makes sense is deism. I'm not deist because I believe that God possesses a conscience and actually cares about his creatures but if you wanna take that route, I can't really argue with you.

How do atheists get around first cause? You can argue that the universe was the first cause but.. that argument really isn't any better than any arguments for the existence of God. In the end, it's just a matter of faith, do you believe in a timeless universe or do you believe in a timeless god? The belief is yours to make, I just hate it when atheists try to claim logical superiority when their mode of thought is also based on faith.

[Jack04]

An eternal membrane from which the universe expanded avoids first cause. There can be no first cause of an infinite existence. In fact, from general relativity we could make the connection that time is simply a property of our dimensions, something that wouldn't exist before the big bang. Assuming our spacetime was "created" at the moment of the big bang, there could logically have been no time previously (terrible choice of word but I can't think of an alternative).

[Panzerbear]

on life creation being impossible without god.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

in more general terms, the humankind has made insane amount of scientific progress, now that we understand a lot more about our world and how one thing leads to another as compared to even 100 years ago.

the difference between an atheist and a religious person is that the latter accepts everything on pure faith and doesn't need logic for it.
when you do not fully understand a process XYZ, a scientist will say "OK lets resarch this stuff and we may eventually find out the answer", whereas a religious person would say "oh, because God made things that way".

and this type of thinking was applied by thunder, lightning, sun, rain, water, gravity, evolution, cellular biology, and so on and so forth.
the more we know, the less is there a room for a deity, because we can adequately explain things and understand that they don't need an imaginary God's hand to make things happen.

[Stario]

the difference between an atheist and a religious person is that the latter accepts everything on pure faith and doesn't need logic for it.
when you do not fully understand a process XYZ, a scientist will say "OK lets resarch this stuff and we may eventually find out the answer", whereas a religious person would say "oh, because God made things that way"....

Somewhat ignorant argument. When I fully don't understand "XYZ" I too undertake the path of research to find/attempt to find the answer(s). When I finally find the answer(s) I think WOW! God is truly amazing.

the more we know, the less is there a room for a deity, because we can adequately explain things and understand that they don't need an imaginary God's hand to make things happen.

Not at all. Personally, the more I know the more I appreciate God for creating the Universe, the Big Bang, evolution, and all the other possible phenomena that the human race cannot comprehend and/or is ignorant of. There will always be room of a deity/God, but only if one chooses to make room.

[Biggreenfellow]

"There are some who, failing to find God by observation, conclude that there is no God and that this world of wonders made itself, or existed from everlasting. They are like a man who, seeing a beautifully written letter, should suppose that It had written itself without a writer, or had always existed. People in this state of mind are so far gone in error that it is of little use to argue with them." - Al-Ghazali

When hearing this the average atheist will always say: "But but but, then what created God?!" If you take three seconds to think, you will see that the argument mentioned above cannot possibly be made because if there was no first cause, then nothing would ever exist..

Then there are those who try to make an infinite regression of multiverses sound plausible but this dodges the issue of what triggered that chain to begin with..

The closest thing to atheism that actually makes sense is deism. I'm not deist because I believe that God possesses a conscience and actually cares about his creatures but if you wanna take that route, I can't really argue with you.

How do atheists get around first cause? You can argue that the universe was the first cause but.. that argument really isn't any better than any arguments for the existence of God. In the end, it's just a matter of faith, do you believe in a timeless universe or do you believe in a timeless god? The belief is yours to make, I just hate it when atheists try to claim logical superiority when their mode of thought is also based on faith.

No. It's based on science.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoo...ng/BigBang.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-...verse-big.html

[Pious Agnost]

99% of the time they do it by being honest.

We don't have a solid answer.

Yet.

[Manco]

99% of the time they do it by being honest.

We don't have a solid answer.

Yet.

This.


Also, who says there IS a first cause?

[Vizsla]

When hearing this the average atheist will always say: "But but but, then what created God?!" If you take three seconds to think, you will see that the argument mentioned above cannot possibly be made because if there was no first cause, then nothing would ever exist..

I have thought about it for more than three seconds.
Your argument against applying the first cause problem to God is that something must have started everything. Therefore God exists.
You could equally apply the same method of thought to all other creation myths or scientific hypotheses, like this one:
“Obviously the Universe must have started somehow. Therefore the Big Bang happened.”
For your argument to make sense you have to put in the logical steps that lead you to your final conclusion. (You can’t because there aren’t any.)
The only honest and scientifically literate answer is to say that we don’t know how the Universe started.
What is wrong with saying we don’t know because we don’t have enough information yet?
I think this is how many atheists answer your question by the way.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Ok so four replies so far:

1st guy says that space and time has existed since forever

2nd guy wrote about abiogenesis which has nothing to do with the cosmology being discussed here

3rd guy posted some links about the Big Bang, I'm assuming he also thinks that the universe has existed forever

4th guy doesn't really know what to believe.

"There are some who, failing to find God by observation, conclude that there is no God and that this world of wonders made itself, or existed from everlasting. They are like a man who, seeing a beautifully written letter, should suppose that It had written itself without a writer, or had always existed."

[Jack04]

Ok so four replies so far:

1st guy says that space and time has existed since forever

I recommend you read it again. I said specifically that space and time may not have existed before the big bang, thus removing the issue.

[Biggreenfellow]

3rd guy posted some links about the Big Bang, I'm assuming he also thinks that the universe has existed forever

Actually, I posted 1 link about the Big Bang, and a second link about a scientific theory that can be used to glimpse what came before.

Also, the Big Bang theory states that time did not exist before the Big Bang, so 'forever' doesn't come into it.

EDIT:
We don't know is not a dodge. We'll never know is either arrogant or condescending. Arrogant if you believe we are as smart now as we'll ever be, and we will never advance science beyond this point. Condescending if you believe mankind is incapable of finding, or understanding, the truth.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Actually, I posted 1 link about the Big Bang, and a second link about a scientific theory that can be used to glimpse what came before.

Also, the Big Bang theory states that time did not exist before the Big Bang, so 'forever' doesn't come into it.

That's some semantical bs. Forever is a measure of time consisting of its entirety altogether.

[Biggreenfellow]

That's some semantical bs. Forever is a measure of time consisting of its entirety altogether.

Right! It's BS! Why bother reading the arguments we present when you, with your infinite wisdom, can dismiss everything scientists say out of hand!

Troll thread is trolling.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Right! It's BS! Why bother reading the arguments we present when you, with your infinite wisdom, can dismiss everything scientists say out of hand!

Troll thread is trolling.

"Also, the Big Bang theory states that time did not exist before the Big Bang, so 'forever' doesn't come into it."

You were wasting my time with semantical arguments, if I wanted to argue about the definition of "forever" I'd go to an English forum.

[TSD]

Ok so four replies so far:

1st guy says that space and time has existed since forever

2nd guy wrote about abiogenesis which has nothing to do with the cosmology being discussed here

3rd guy posted some links about the Big Bang, I'm assuming he also thinks that the universe has existed forever

4th guy doesn't really know what to believe.

"There are some who, failing to find God by observation, conclude that there is no God and that this world of wonders made itself, or existed from everlasting. They are like a man who, seeing a beautifully written letter, should suppose that It had written itself without a writer, or had always existed."

the guy tried to treat a letter and the universe as if they are two sides of the same coin. It is a horrible analogy. I've seen people write letters, I've written letters, therefore the logical explanation for a written letter, is ding ding, someone wrote it. We have nowhere near the knowledge on the origin of the universe as we do to the origin of written letters, therefore the analogy is crap. Typical babble, like Kirk Cameron comparing a can of coke to a tree and seeing them as the same thing.

[Pious Agnost]

4th guy doesn't really know what to believe.

While I know you'd love to believe that, it's not strictly true.

I do know what to believe, and that's that the cause will be discovered in due time.

[Admiral Piett]

@ OP

It helps if you also think of the universe as a naturally occurring entity rather than something that has to be 'created'.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

We don't know is just a dodge, we'll never know is much more honest because we don't have the proper tools to reach beyond our scope of perception..

[Khassaki]

We don't know is just a dodge, we'll never know is much more honest because we don't have the proper tools to reach beyond our scope of perception..

We don't care is the most honest. The universe exists and science has models to explain how it came into being. Their is no reason, purpose, or point to inventing gods to explain part of the process.

[Meneth]

"How do atheists get around first cause?"
We simply say: we don't know why/how the universe stared. Yet.