Retarded arguments against atheism #2

The First Cause argument.

The First Cause argument goes a little something like this, according to at least one lone crusader, anyway.

You think that there is no G-d, no Creator of the world.

So that means before the world was created there was no G-d, no nothing!

Do you realize what this means you pseudo intellectual fuckers?

It means you believe that NOTHING created the whole fucking world!

If you someone brought you a cake and you told them that you thought there was no creator to the cake we would have thrown you into the loony bin a hell of a long time ago.

Yet you can sit there and believe that NOTHING created the whole DAMN UNIVERSE and not only do we not lock you up, we treat you like you’re some kind of fucking genius.

Well screw you, atheist fuckers. You are nuts.

Ha! Nice one.

The “real” First Cause argument (wikipedia) is not much different, though usually a little less furious. (Not that there’s anything wrong with being furious on a blog, that’s what blogs are for, innit?)

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first cause argument (or cosmological argument) argues that there must be something which caused the universe to exist, reasoning that if everything which begins to exist has a cause (presuming this to be obvious), that the universe must have a cause of its existence, or, that the universe must have always existed, and be infinitely old.

The leap is then made, inexplicably, that what caused the universe to exist is God.

Well, first off, have we ever seen anything begin to exist? We have seen things come to be made, like houses, or cakes — but they are generally made from other, already existing things, like lumber and nails, or flour, sugar, and eggs. These are examples not of things beginning to exist, but of mere rearrangements of already existing atoms. So these everyday things don’t count. There is even a Christian joke which demonstrates an understanding of this distinction. It’s about a scientist who figures out how to create life from dirt, the punchline has God telling him, “get your own dirt.”

According to physicists, electrons and anti-electrons are supposedly popping into existence in pairs and instantly annihilating each other, all over the place and all the time. And funny enough, these events of things popping into existence so far as we can tell appear to be uncaused. So the only things we suppose to be popping into existence from nothing — ex nihilo — appear to be uncaused. But the universe popping into existence, that must have a cause? How do you figure? I think someone claiming the universe needs a cause for its existence is making a category error. Rearranging of atoms to “make” something is not like making atoms from nothing.

Another point: There is an idea of causality we have in our minds, and this idea depends on time. There is no observable “outside” the universe, nor, it would seem any such thing as “before” the universe began. So how could there be something like a “cause,” when the very concept of “cause” depends on time — a property of the universe?

Another feature of the first cause argument (at least, as posited by the likes of Lone Crusader) is a kind of mixing with the argument from design. When Lone Crusader says this:

It means you believe that NOTHING created the whole fucking world!

the implication is that “the whole fucking world” is far to complex to exist without something intentionally creating that complexity. And so a god is posited. Well, is this god more complex, or less complex than the universe? Most theists would say that god is more complex, some would probably say god is infinitely complex.

Consider though that if it is posited that the universe must have a cause because “everything” has a cause, then the existence of a god more complicated and bigger than the universe itself is posited as this cause, so, what is the cause of this god’s existence?

Or, why is this god exempt from needing a cause, while the universe is not exempt? How is it that something bigger and more complicated than the universe is permitted to “exist” without a cause, but the universe requires a cause, precisely because it is too complex not to have one? This is special pleading.

When the hypothetical (say, Christian) god sits around in heaven or wherever he “sits”, and perceives himself, in all his complexity, and the complexity of heaven all around him, and looks at the universe, and earth, in their comparative simplicity, and says to himself, well, I know where that universe and that earth came from, I made them!” does he also ask himself, “but, where did I come from? Who made me?” Does this God have a religion?

Sorry, the first cause argument is as bankrupt as they come.

~ by scaryreasoner on January 31, 2008.

34 Responses to “Retarded arguments against atheism #2”

  1. Eventually there has to be something that exists without any cause. You are right. That’s what I call G-d. You can call it whatever you want. But nothing still doesn’t create shit.

    See my comments on my blog responding.

  2. Don’t paint me as some kind of Christian. I think the Christian belief in G-d is just as full of shit as you are.

  3. Both you guys are wrong: that’s why I’m the lone crusader.

  4. “Eventually there has to be something that exists without any cause. You are right. That’s what I call G-d. You can call it whatever you want. But nothing still doesn’t create shit.” — lonecrusader

    So, what created “G-D”? Nothing?

  5. Lonecrusader ain’t got a clue how lone he is. Does circularity well. About as futile as telling a cow about butchers.

  6. Don’t ask me why or how I stumbled into this goofy place. People talking about “cause” and “God” and “G-d” and “god” and nobody knows what they are talking about. And still this one person shoots down everything with what they call “reason”.
    Could I say that I know there is a God and that I have the PROOF. But there is a problem with my proof. It took faith to get it. Faith is what scares the reasoners. They want proof, but they want it their way. That is like saying, I am looking for the watch I lost in my bedroom, because I am more comfortable looking for it there than the place where I lost it.
    A person told me, I could be saved by Jesus Christ. I couldn’t believe it. But if it was true, I wanted it. Just like every single person on the Globe. Everyone must agree. If knowing that you could be saved from sin and live forever with a righteous God (of any spelling) that you would want it.
    So what everyone wants to know is, is it true?
    I decided that I would never figure it out before it was too late, so I called God’s bluff. I picked up both feet and jumped into the arms of Christ. He caught me.
    I know that it is true, because He not only caught me, he changed me. I didn’t change myself. He changed me, just like the Bible said He would. That was my proof. God does exist. I have the proof. You could have it too, but the proof comes after salvation, not before.
    Therefore it takes use of faith, to get the proof.
    There is a problem with this, though.
    Some have asked to be saved and never got the proof.
    I did that too. But I asked insincerely and I called on Jesus and missed Him as Saviour. The last sentence would take several more pages to explain. But it does not matter, I got my proof and since then I have told this to literally 100’s and 100’s and many of them got their proof.
    So are you all going to continue to argue, or get your proof.
    I got to get off this Black Page with the White Writing.
    Forgive me for writing so long.
    AndresUSA.com

  7. “Lonecrusader ain’t got a clue how lone he is.”

    Heh. I get what you mean, though he does have plenty of company in terms of people thinking the same way he does.

    Wasn’t meaning to pick particularly on lonecrusader though, he just provided a conveniently comedic wording of this particular argument. And I later realized this was his very first posting on a brand new blog which I happened on almost the instant he posted it, which I feld slightly bad about having pounced on so promptly, but only slightly. Ha! Welcome to wordpress, lonecrusader. It’s a tough internet out there, eh?

    And “Crusader” is a funny choice of nicknames for a non-Christian, though I figured he wasn’t a Christian by his use of “G-d”. He apparently thinks he’s not permitted to type “God”, which is a pretty weird thing to think, though a quick google search will show it’s also a common thing to think (80 million hits for “g-d”).

  8. Say what you want. But please don’t say that many people think like me. That’s just wrong. Nobody does.

  9. You asked “so what created G-d” Nothing?

    My answer: Yes.

    G-d always existed and didn’t need anything to create Him.
    Why is that so fucking hard to believe?
    You are willing to believe that nothing creates everything and that’s all normal and smart and all that bullshit. But to say that SOMETHING that always existed created everything makes my argument retarded.

    I don’t expect you to be reasonable here, I mean. This is an atheist blog. It’s not like you can just say “good point lone crusader…let’s now change this to a G-d blog.” I know you won’t do that because your ego is wrapped up in this atheist gig and that prevents you from reexamining your views.

    So all I can say is: that sucks for you.

  10. And by the way. Don’t feel bad that you argued with me on my first post. I like the arguments. How can I know if I’m not really full of shit if I don’t have people challenging what I say?

  11. “Say what you want. But please don’t say that many people think like me. That’s just wrong. Nobody does.”

    I don’t know you, I only have your words to go by. In the respect that many people regard the first cause argument to be a good argument, as you apparently do, many people agree with you. That is all that I meant when I said many people think as you do.

  12. “G-d always existed and didn’t need anything to create Him. Why is that so fucking hard to believe?”

    Because there’s no evidence for it. And before you say that “whatever it was that was the cause is what you call ‘g-d’, you ALSO think this whatever it was doesn’t want you to type ‘god’, but ‘g-d’ instead, apparently. That is completely irrational.

    “You are willing to believe that nothing creates everything and that’s all normal and smart and all that bullshit. ”

    I don’t think it’s irrational to think there is ultimately something which has no cause. In fact, we have never ever seen a single thing ever begin to exist WITH a cause. Not once. So the assertion that anything which begins to exist must have a cause has zero evidence to back this up. Zero.

  13. I think my next blog post will be about how Christians are morons.
    Maybe you will like that one better.

  14. You are saying that things come into existence all the time without a cause, but what you really mean is that they come into existence without a cause that we understand and can quantify or scientifically examine at this stage.

    That’s your fallacy dude.

  15. Want me to really blow your mind right now?

    We actually totally agree you and me.

    You belive things are always being brought into existence by something that we can’t see and we don’t know what it is and so do I.

    We just have different labels for the shit we believe is doing this.

  16. I actually don’t think Christians are morons, though they may at times behave in a similar manner, and no doubt some Christians are morons, just because some people are morons. I think they are, for the most part, simply the victims of brainwashing, as are the members of most religions (maybe all religions — I’m not familiar with all religions, so I can’t say that).

    I say this because I’ve read many stories of ex-christians who’ve changed their minds about Christianity, deciding that it’s a load of crap. They don’t change their minds the first time they encounter an argument which they later come to agree with. It takes time. Sometimes a few months, more often years, sometimes decades.

    The arguments don’t change during those months, years, or decades. The arguments have remained nearly unchanged in the last 1000 years. (Darwin significantly changed the arguments more recently, and Francis and Crick more recently, and in the last 50 or 60 years, neuroscience has been changing the arguments a bit. The astronomers and physicists have changed the arguments as well, but Darwin brought the biggest change in the last 200 years.

    Point is, a good argument doesn’t change someone’s mind overnight. It takes a long long time for someone to be able to accept a conclusion which flies in the face of everything they’ve been brainwashed to accept, made to fear accepting, made to worry about what their friends and family will think should they accept, etc.

    Read some deconversion stories, some are here:
    http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html#deconversion

    You can read all of them, and not find the single argument which changed any of their minds. It doesn’t work like that.

    There’s a cumulative effect, over time, which, little by little, pieces of the arguments are accepted, until some kind of tipping point is reached.

  17. “Want me to really blow your mind right now?
    We actually totally agree you and me.”

    You’re not likely to blow my mind, I’ve been discussing religion and atheism with lots of people for a very long time now, more or less daily since 2003.

    “You belive things are always being brought into existence by something that we can’t see and we don’t know what it is and so do I.”

    But I suspect you think this thing is intelligent, and I think there’s no evidence to suggest that there is.

    Now, if you’re a deist, I’ve got little to quarrel with you about, but deists don’t usually go around writing ‘g-d’. (You may think I’m harping on that, and I don’t mean to) but you haven’t explained it, and it is extremely weird. When I’ve seen others do it, they’ve turned out to be Jewish, but I won’t assume that’s the case (not that there’s anything wrong with it — apart from I think the Jewish religion is mistaken, just as I think the others are.))

    “We just have different labels for the shit we believe is doing this.”

    I think there is more difference than that. It think, based on what you write, that you believe in quite a few more attributes of this “shit we believe is doing this” than I do. I might be wrong about that, but what you’ve written so far does not make me think I’m wrong.

  18. I would actually prefer to leave why I write “G-d” out of the discussion, because that would just distract from finding the truth here. G-d is a label and I don’t want to get into a discussion of arguing about labels. I like to stay on point even if you may think it’s “weird” I’d ask you to suspend your curiosity for the sake of having an honest discussion.

    Okay?

    Now you mention about the attributes I assign to this cause.
    That’s a useful thing to talk abuot. What can we know about this “thing” that brings everything into existence.

    I sort of addressed this on a post in my blog so I’ll copy-paste it here and maybe you will like it.

    This is what I wrote to this chick named Manya:

    I also noticed you said that just the fact that this cause created the world doesn’t tell us shit about who or what this cause is all about.

    I disagree.

    I think you would agree that if you read a book by author, and let’s say you are an insightful reader, you can learn a hell of a lot about that author from his book. From the fact that he wrote a book at all we know he’s literate. If the book is in English we know he or she knows English. If the book tells us about the authors life we can learn more and more and more.

    Bottom line: We can learn a lot of shit about the creator of something from the shit that they create.

    If you agree with me that it’s rational to assume there is some kind of cause that started of this whole fucking world, then we should be able to look at that world that that cause created and learn a few things about that cause.

    So I look at the world.

    And this is what I see and these are the lesson I learn.

    Lesson #1: There is shit in this world. There is a bunch of stuff. Stuff doesn’t create itself, so I know this “cause” must have the ability to create stuff.
    Lesson #2: A lot of this stuff is very fucking smart. Trees are fucking smart. They make these perfect fucking apples which taste great and look really good too. It’s pretty amazing.
    So I would say that there is wisdom in this world.

    Well, again. This wisdom didn’t create itself, so once again I would say that this “cause” must have some wisdom.

    I could say a lot more, but this much I know about this cause:
    a) It can create stuff
    b) It’s wise.

    We can learn more lessons from the world about “the cause” but this is all for tonight children. Now have a a nice sleep snugglepuff. 🙂

  19. Now if this chick doesn’t think I’m totally badass after that post then I know nothing about women. 🙂

  20. “Lesson #1: There is shit in this world. There is a bunch of stuff. Stuff doesn’t create itself,”

    How do you know there needs to be a cause? You haven’t shown this.

    “Lesson #2: A lot of this stuff is very fucking smart. Trees are fucking smart.”

    Ah, the argument from design. Your ignorance is not evidence. Evolution is a very good, very robust explanation for this complexity.

    Now, it is true we don’t know how the first (much simpler) life formed, or what it looked like, or how it worked. But our ignorance of this is not evidence. Certainly not evidence for any sentient creator.

    And though we may not know much about very early life, we do know quite a lot about what happened after that: evolution.

    And asking you why you write ‘g-d’ is a fair question, as this quirk implies that one of the attributes you assign to this positedcreator is the attribute that it gives a shit about how you refer to it in writing, and specifically, in the English language, which is an incredibly specific attribute. And you want to take this off the table. Of course you do, as it is indefensible.

  21. BTW, lest someone think I was joking about the “get your own dirt” Christian joke.

    Here’s a current blog posting that is nothing but that very joke:

    http://mustardsong.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/creatio-ex-nihilo/

    Heh.

  22. That’s really funny Scary.
    No proof of who made the first creation that got evolution rolling therefor you beleive that no Creator existed.

    No explanation from me about why I write G-d instead of God, so you believe there is no good explanation (it’s indefensible)

    In both cases you assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That makes you a VERY scary reasoner. It’s scary that this shit could pass off as reasoning…that’s the scary part of it.

  23. There is a difference between “believing there’s no creator” and not believing there is a creator.

    You haven’t show any evidence at all that there is a creator.

    Same with you’re “g-d”, you refuse to give an explanation. I don’t think that there is no explanation, I’m sure there is an explanation. I’d bet that the explanation involves religion.

    You haven’t got any arguments.

    You can’t accuse me of using “absence of evidence as evidence of absence” when I don’t believe in the non-existence of god, I simply don’t believe in the existence.

    I am an agnostic atheist, as are most atheists. The word agnostic has to do with what is knowable, or not knowable. The word atheist has to do with what is believed. So an agnostic atheist is a person who thinks it is not strictly knowable whether any gods exist, but who lacks belief in any of them.

    Just as you cannot know for certain that there is not a teapot orbiting Saturn (the Soviets might have put one out there, for all you know), yet you might simultaneously think that there is almost certainly not any teapot orbiting Saturn.

    You’re argument boils down to this:

    1. Scary Reasoner doesn’t know how things got strated.

    2. Scary Reasoner fails to believe “g-d” started things.

    3. Therefore Scary Reasoner is an idiot.

    That’s your argument.

    If you stand by that argument, I think it’s clear who the idiot is, and it’s not me.

  24. the first cause argument is inductive, it was never intended to convince non believers, it requires belief and provides clarity so long as you take the premises. arguments such as the first cause argument were proposed by school of thought such as Kalam or great thinkers including thomas aquinas, all of which seem to be alot more intelligent than you. i suggest a little more open mindedness is required. after all theres always the brilliant argument of, theres no harm in believing, but if you argue so strongly against a God and then He turns out to exist, then you’re in trouble.

    • Actually there is harm in believing in some cases like terrorists who blow themselves up along with countless innocent people in the ”name of god” simply because they want to reach a sort of heaven. Something like that I believe would ban them from their heaven as their Koran states not to harm innocents yet on the other hand they are merely blowing these people up for the selfish reason of them wanting to get into heaven. You might argue that it is their struggle against the ”infidel” but how is it so? Sending across a message that all should do and believe as them through reckless killing doesn’t really send a very good message.

    • Oh and he wouldn’t be in trouble because really he is just saying, why believe something if the proof is not there. Would you believe me if I said another religion’s God exists simply because I say so?

  25. Oh, good grief, dailythoughtmotion, you malign my intelligence, yet you then toss out Pascal’s wager as if you think _that_ is a good argument?

    I think Pascal’s wager will have to be next in my series of Retarded Arguments against Atheism.

  26. […] arguments against ath…poppies on Retarded arguments against ath…scaryreasoner on Retarded arguments against ath… […]

  27. thier is no god its so fuckin obvious when we die we die you want even know your dead when you die you wont know anything. thier it goes the obvious answer that cant be argued agianst. stop fearin death so much. oh yeah and if you want 2 be somewhat reasonable and believe thiers a god then maybe the whole universe is god okay. i dont believe in a after life it seems foolish 2 me because i dont even believe in a soul or spirit out side of it being the mind.

  28. The problem is you found a clearly retarded person in the first place. The reality is its impossible to prove for or prove against by unfurling some magic box and going “THERE!”, its all speculation.

    Hence; anyone who “goes on the offence” on a topic like this clearly doesn’t understand or is just plain ignorant of the reverse position.

    But in leu of proof I refuse to take either side…or care…

    Is there a good way to say “I really could give a shit about religion; god, science, whatever. All I know is I have a job and a wife”.

    I shall call my religion “”.

  29. RiceCake, you might care if religion were to someday impact you — and if it did, it would be almost certain to do so in a negative way.

    The fact that it cannot be proved whether any gods exist or not is not relevant. The fact that we do not know how the universe came to exist is not a license to believe what is obviously nonsense. Those who believe what is obviously nonsense, and, because of those beliefs, behave in ways I find objectionable (e.g. every Christian on the planet) are going to get an argument from me.

    The fact that you do not care seems questionable. You care enough to comment on this blog. Why, if you don’t care? You do care, at least enough to post a comment.

    I care a lot more than that because I know that religion is far from harmless.

  30. yet again, shut up everyone

  31. 1st Point: Have we ever seen anything begin to exist
    Reply: I don’t know why you would lead with this point. For someone desiring a rational discourse, it has the effect of giving a silly start to what might have been a good argument. Creationists, theists, and whoever else you have a problem with did not come up with this idea, nor was it pulled out of thin air as your beginning argument seems to imply. The notion that things begin to exist is based on the observable, measurable, quantifiable, analysis of phenomena that happens everyday on earth, where we see cause and effect in full sway. Scientists have always used this form of analysis when examining cosmological phenomena outside of our planet, and it has shown it’s explanatory value in the relatively few times we have engaged in space travel, as well as the general theory of relativity, and other explanatory theories put forth by world renowned scientists. I can’t think of one scientific discipline that doesn’t have ’cause and effect’ at the very core of their ability to explain whatever phenomena is being studied by that particular discipline. Science then has good reason to suppose that cause and effect happens throughout the cosmos, and conversely it has no good reason to suppose that it doesn’t.

    2nd Point: According to Physicists, electrons and anti electrons seem to be popping into existence without any cause. (paraphrase mine)
    Reply: These same Physicists are not putting forth the idea that we see no cause therefore let’s stop looking for one. This may not have been your intent, but again you seem to imply this in how you presented this part of your argument. If this wasn’t your intent then what was? You do believe that these scientists are continuing their experiments in the quest to explain the phenomena they observed? Is it even possible to explain any phenomena without an appeal to cause and effect? Would it have any explanatory value if you could? To the actual point you made, you’re obviously referring to Quantum Physics, which is still a relatively new discipline within the Sciences, where all the rules and laws of Quantum physics have not been worked out yet, and adequate explanations have not been formulated.

  32. 3rd Point: There is an idea of causality we have in our minds, and this idea depends on time. There is no observable “outside” the universe, nor, it would seem any such thing as “before” the universe began. So how could there be something like a “cause,” when the very concept of “cause” depends on time — a property of the universe?
    Reply: Again, you’re treating your subject matter with so much abstract thought as to render the subject matter absurd. Cause and Effect is what we observe, and experience in the physical world. It is the foundation for all explanatory theories, and is the analytical basis for every discipline of Science. If Cause and Effect has been our observable, measurable, quantifiable, testable experience with all physical phenomena that we have on Earth, and in our limited space travel, than it stands to reason there must have been a ‘beginning’ or first cause, which Scientists have been looking for every since the Big Bang Theory was proposed. The idea of a First Cause is not dependent on a Theistic, or religious view. It’s the logical conclusion from Science, and entirely dependent on the observed phenomena.

    4th Point:Consider though that if it is posited that the universe must have a cause because “everything” has a cause, then the existence of a god more complicated and bigger than the universe itself is posited as this cause, so, what is the cause of this god’s existence?

    Or, why is this god exempt from needing a cause, while the universe is not exempt? How is it that something bigger and more complicated than the universe is permitted to “exist” without a cause, but the universe requires a cause, precisely because it is too complex not to have one? This is special pleading.
    Reply: For me this is your first reasonable objection, and stems from the logical conclusion drawn by the notion of Cause and Effect. This is good. Now you must enter into what I call the next level of logical analysis, where you’re not merely following an idea to it’s logical conclusion, but where you begin to use logic to troubleshoot the objection. Here is where a quote from Spock is most apropos: “If you eliminate the impossible, than whatever is left, however improbable, must be true. If science has proven the veracity, and sheer explanatory power of Cause and Effect analysis, than the only logical answer available is there must be a cause that is not dependent upon a prior cause in order to exist. You might also formulate it this way: If Science has shown that life always comes from life without exception, than the only answer available is there must be a life that not’s dependent upon a prior life in order to exist. Mind you, we haven’t even begun to enter God into the discussion. My main point is you’re not going to do away with the observed reality of Cause and Effect with what is only a philosophical argument. We don’t have to keep bantering around about this. Either admit that you believe that Life and the Universe has always existed or you believe there was a beginning to these things. But don’t waste time trying to argue as if Cause and Effect is absurd, and something theist mistakenly introduced into the pantheon of intellectual thought and analysis. You seem to be a better thinker than that, so write like it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: