Intelligent Design in Schools

[Agathon]

If you want to win this debate you must show that the universe needs no cause.

No he doesn't. All he needs is to show that the universe may need no cause. If he can prove that, then it is an open question as to whether a first cause exists, a question that cannot be answered by the cosmological argument, which assumes it must.

Take these two parallel arguments:

(1) It appears possible that time is an intra-universal phenomenon (you have no real evidence that it is not). Therefore, it does not appear necessary that there was a time before the beginning of the universe.

(2) It appears possible that causation is an intra-universal phenomenon (you have no evidence that it is not). Therefore, it appears not necessary for us to believe that the universe itself requires a cause.

So a first cause may exist, but it does not appear to exist of necessity. This is because you can't prove that causation is something that must extend beyond our own universe. After all, it seems logically possible for there to exist a universe where there are no causes and no effects (Plato's intelligible world might be an example of such a universe).

[Sandman]

CyberShy states:

I tried to make clear that you can't compare God with the universe and copy the properties of God to the universe.

But then claims that he isn't saying that atheists and pantheists are 'stealing' the self-existing nature of god.

No, that's not what I said. I just say that it's foolish to claim that the universe is self-existing because God can be self existing.

That seems like a contradiction. I reiterate that the distinction between spiritual and physical is arbitary and meaningless. There are innumerable philosophers and philosophies that blend the two, and the idea of the universe existing without cause probably precedes the idea of god existing without cause.

[Robert]

No he doesn't. All he needs is to show that the universe may need no cause.

Ok, that's true.
Well, prove it.

(1) It appears possible that time is an intra-universal phenomenon (you have no real evidence that it is not). Therefore, it does not appear necessary that there was a time before the beginning of the universe.

Time is not a key element of cause.
Cause is about something that makes something that doesn't exist existing.

That there's a "before existing" and an "after not existing" is of little importance.

(2) It appears possible that causation is an intra-universal phenomenon (you have no evidence that it is not). Therefore, it appears not necessary for us to believe that the universe itself requires a cause.

True.
You just gave an argument why God may need no cause.

Since the universe is nothing more then the sum of all intra-universal things the laws that apply upon the intra-universal things also apply upon the universe itself. If all parts of a bike are red, then the bike itself is red as well.

Your argument makes sence if you can either
a) find a part of the universe that's not also an intra-universal thing
b) make clear that that part may need no cause.

If you can't do that, then your argument only applies to God, who doesn't nescecarily have to comply to the 'law of causation' because he's not a part of the universe, or in your words: an intra-universal being/thing.

Anyway: thanks for bringing this debate to a higher level and understanding my way of reasoning!

So a first cause may exist, but it does not appear to exist of necessity. This is because you can't prove that causation is something that must extend beyond our own universe. After all, it seems logically possible for there to exist a universe where there are no causes and no effects (Plato's intelligible world might be an example of such a universe).

True, but I doubt that there are many atheists who believe in the existance of such a Platoish world

But then claims that he isn't saying that atheists and pantheists are 'stealing' the self-existing nature of god.

They are stealing it as a figure of speech. (they don't really believe it).
But even as a figure of speech it fails.

That seems like a contradiction.

How?

I reiterate that the distinction between spiritual and physical is arbitary and meaningless.

That's not the subject of this debate.
It's Dawkins that wanted to use a property of an (non existing?) spiritual being on a (partly) physical being.
The question if that spiritual being exists or if spirituality exists at all does not matter in this case.
And if it does matter then Dawkins would be even more foolish to use it.

What Dawkins tries to do is using the words and context of theists to explain why such a context isn't needed to understand the world as we know it.
Therefor he uses God, a being he doesn't believe in. He fails because he either doesn't understand how theists think about God (ie. that God is not an intra-universal being, like Ra/Re / Apollo / Zeus, etc., but an extra-universal being.) or he's just bringing forth kindergarten philosophy.

If it's the first he shouldn't be token seriously in the theist/atheist debate, because he doesn't understand half of the arguments, if it's the latter he should only be considered as a teacher for children or those who have blind faith in the prophets of atheism.

I'll tell you, if my minister would say crazy things like Dawkins (ie. God must exist because the Bible tells me so) then I would not try to back him up like you try to backup Dawkins. Why do atheists hardly ever speak out loud about other atheists who say stupid things? Do atheists never say stupid things?

There are innumerable philosophers and philosophies that blend the two, and the idea of the universe existing without cause probably precedes the idea of god existing without cause.

So what?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But you do not counter our first-cause argument with the "But the universe can be causeless as well" trick.
And that's because the logic that applies to the concept of God doesn't need to apply to the universe as well.

You say you understand, but you obviously don't.

The creator doesn't have to live up to the same laws as the creation.

Before you can claim one is a creator and one is a creation, you first have to prove one was the creator and one was the creation. Which you haven't done.

Even then though, you can't prove that the creator doesn't have to live up to the same laws as the creation. No slight tweaks to the wording, or intellectually dishonest wordplays, are going to work, the basis of your argument is fundamentally flawed in that you are taking two unknowns and trying to prove that one is different than the other.

It just won't work until you can actually show what the unknowns are. Which you cannot currently do for the "cause" (or lack thereof) of either the universe or God.

Some examples again:
- a computer programmer does not need power while his code does.
- a bike maker doesn't need paint while is bike does
- a car maker doesn't need gass while his car does.

Now you're back to the same fallacy you admitted was fallacious prior. These statements can be verified. Your statements about God and the universe cannot.

Your arguments also become rather interesting if we put "a creator" (or "cause") back into the "analogies" to "cause":

- a computer programmer does not need a creator while his code does.
- a bike maker doesn't need a creator while his bike does.
- a care maker doesn't need a creator while his car does.

(I'll also point out that all the "creators" in your analogies are ruled by the same physical laws as the universe and their "creations"... which are really just organizing matter/energy, not creating it.)

You apparantly aren't able to think like a theist.
If you want to counter us you must understand our way of reasoning. Our way of reasoning may be wrong, but as long as you don't understand our way of reasoning you can never counter it. Not to mention that you can't be sure if it's wrong if you don't understand it.

I understand how the thought process of a theist can work, I grew up a theist... and have studied more than most. When I was a theist though, I certainly didn't "think" like you do. Neither does my father, who is a theist, and a very intelligent one at that. Smart enough that he realizes he can't prove the universe needs a cause while God does not. So he doesn't try to use the "first cause" argument to prove that there must have been a God. Or any of the unsupportable fluff you are trying to base off of that.

I think that there are very good reasons to say that the universe as we know it needs a cause.

What cause would that be specifically?

Right now we know that everything we know needs a cause.

You say that... and, "God doesn't need a cause" in the same breath.

There is no evidence to prove there is a God, let alone that God doesn't need a cause.

Current sciencific knowledge teaches us that the perpetuum mobile does not exist.
And an ever-existing universe needs to be a perpetuum mobile.

This is a bit above my ability to speak knowledgeably, but my understanding is...

A perpetuum mobile is a closed system which produces more energy than it consumes. Which obviously is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.

An ever-existing universe (that being the energy/matter which comprises it...) does not necessarily have to be a system which produces more energy than it consumes. (Though it would certainly not always be in the form it is now.) And that since you cannot either create or destroy energy, current laws would suggest the matter/energy actually always has existed in some form.

Since theists believe that God is not a part of the universe there's no reason to believe that he has to live up to the same laws as the universe.

There are no laws of the universe currently that deal with the "cause" of the universe. Remember we are talking about "cause". Or have you forgotten?

There is no differentiation between the need for "cause" for God or the need for "cause" for the universe. They are both unknowns at this point. You still don't understand what the argument you are ridiculing actually means.

Claiming that the first-cause argument is bollocks because applying the same logic to the universe logically creates a self-causing universe is false.

Again, you don't understand the argument you are ridiculing, or the one you are espousing. The one you are espousing doesn't create a "self-causing" universe. It allows for a universe that exists without a "cause". (Whether that's a universe that was "self -causing" or one which just always has existed.)

Neither is a positive claim about what is, only about what your logic allows for.

If you want to counter the first-cause argument you need to give reasons why the universe can be causeless or self-causing.

I am not trying to prove the universe is one way or another. That's the whole point. You say you understand the rebuttal, but you obviously don't.

Countering the first-cause argument is ridiculously easy. I just ask for their proof. Game over.

Following the theistsic first-cause logic it should indeed be possible that theoretically there are more self-causing or causeless things. Maybe there's an uber-god or there are other gods in parallel dimensions, or whatever.

"Whatever" in this case being... the universe.

It just states that there must be a first cause for the universe. Or for matter or space.

Which you cannot prove...

There is a qualitative difference between the cause and the thing that has been caused.

You cannot start with the conclusion and then work to prove the conclusion based on what you started with. The universe if it was not "caused" is not a thing that has been "caused". Until you can prove the universe was "caused" you are just babbling about nonsense.

If you want to win this debate you must show that the universe needs no cause.

You affirm again you don't understand the argument. I have already clearly said that neither God nor the universe can be proven at this time to either have a cause, or not have a cause.

You're the one making positive claims about the nature of both (that God is ruled by other laws than the universe, and the universe must have a "cause"), and so the burden of proof lies on you.

If you can do that then there's no need for a creator or a god anymore.

There's no need for a creator or god right now. To create that "need" you first have to prove that the universe was created. Which you cannot do.

All that is needed right now is a bit of intellectual honesty to admit that we do not know if or how the universe was created, and do not know if there is a God or not, or if or how He was created Himself.

Just stating that following the same logic there's no need for a universe is baseless.

No, you're stating a whole lot more than that. Because your arguments rely upon an a priori assumption that God is a creator and the universe is a creation. Which is ridiculous logic since what you are trying to argue is that God is a creator and the universe is a creation and so they are governed by different laws.

You can't just pretend what you're trying to prove are givens when they're actually unknowns. But that is what you are doing.

But as long as we have no scientific reasons to believe that our universe can be causeless or self-causing, our universe needs an extra-universal cause.

You seem to think we have proven that the universe had a "cause". We have not.

You most probably desire to find good reasons to believe that the universe needs no cause because that gives fuel to your believe that there is no God.

No. I don't believe the universe needs no "cause". I don't even believe there is no God. Try again.

No, but we can think about it.
Philosophy is an important part of science.
Darwin started philosophing about evolution.
If we can't debate/think about things we cannot see/prove, then science will never advance.

As long as you're willing to admit your position is just conjecture with no proof, we are in agreement. Research it all you want, I hope you come up with some useful knowledge. But at this time, your "conclusions" (about both God and the universe's need for a "cause") are not supported by evidence.

We are not debating the question if God must or must not be created or caused.

Yes we are. The retort is one that deals with the nature of the universe's "cause" or lack thereof in regards to the nature of God's "cause" or lack thereof, to point out the logical inconsistency of creationists (generally speaking, when they allow for God to not need a cause, but require the universe to have a cause). You cannot pretend that God's nature is not part of the discussion.

You must give reasons why the universe can be uncaused like God can be uncaused.

No, I don't. Because I am not trying to prove the universe can be without cause. You are trying to prove that something can be without cause, and that it should be allowed for God, but not for the universe. The burden of proof lies on you on all accounts.

It doesn't matter to me if the universe has a cause or not. It also doesn't matter to the retort you are trying to ridicule. That is what you fail to see.

My reasons are:
- God is extra-universal and therefore doesn't need to comply to the universal laws of nature

Which you cannot prove.

- God is spiritual while the universe is (at least partially) material / physical

Which you cannot prove (in whole, the universe is of course at least partially material).

[Robert]

You say you understand, but you obviously don't.

Elaborate.

Before you can claim one is a creator and one is a creation, you first have to prove one was the creator and one was the creation. Which you haven't done.

We're talking about concepts, about hypotheses.
In the conceptual situation where God is the creator and the universe is the creation..... etc. etc.

You're not really good at philosophy, are you?

Even then though, you can't prove that the creator doesn't have to live up to the same laws as the creation. No slight tweaks to the wording, or intellectually dishonest wordplays, are going to work, the basis of your argument is fundamentally flawed in that you are taking two unknowns and trying to prove that one is different than the other.

My claim is that two unknown things do not necessarily do have to live up to the same laws / do have to share the same properties.

So you apparently claim that two unknowns must live up to the same laws and do have to share the same properties.

And you call me crazy?

It just won't work until you can actually show what the unknowns are. Which you cannot currently do for the "cause" (or lack thereof) of either the universe or God.

You have to show what the unknowns are if you are that sure that both unknowns have to live up to the same laws and have to share the same properties.

If you don't want to show that, then you have proven that Dawkins talked poop since Dawkins was the one comparing these two 'unknowns', claiming that they had to share the same laws/ properties.

Now you're back to the same fallacy you admitted was fallacious prior. These statements can be verified. Your statements about God and the universe cannot.

One uses examples that can be verified to explain the more difficult to understand subject.
If you don't understand how to use examples then you're even worse in philosophy then Dawkins who at least tried to use an example when he compared God to the universe.

This is example doesn't say: "Look, a computer program needs a programmer thus the universe needs a human."
No, that's not what it said. It just said that the program and the developer do not have to share the same properties or have to live up to the same laws.

Your arguments also become rather interesting if we put "a creator" (or "cause") back into the "analogies" to "cause":

- a computer programmer does not need a creator while his code does.
- a bike maker doesn't need a creator while his bike does.
- a care maker doesn't need a creator while his car does.

Yes, you are right. In these examples both the 'creator' and the 'creation' do share the 'cause' property. applause.

But that was not what this example was about.
It's obvious that all examples I use are about subjects that need causes since all we (scientific) know does need a cause since it's all part of the universe.

(I'll also point out that all the "creators" in your analogies are ruled by the same physical laws as the universe and their "creations"... which are really just organizing matter/energy, not creating it.)

You just buried your own argument.
Because you're right, a computer program doesn't need a creator but a programmer, a programmer needs a creator

I understand how the thought process of a theist can work, I grew up a theist... and have studied more than most. When I was a theist though, I certainly didn't "think" like you do. Neither does my father, who is a theist, and a very intelligent one at that. Smart enough that he realizes he can't prove the universe needs a cause while God does not. So he doesn't try to use the "first cause" argument to prove that there must have been a God. Or any of the unsupportable fluff you are trying to base off of that.

I'm glad that you think that you know a lot.
It's a pity that you actually do not know a lot about theology or theists.

I've never used the first cause argument to prove that there's a God. Even if the first cause argument is true then there's still no prove that that first cause is God.

You completely miss the subject of this debate. It's not about the question if the universe needs God to exist but about the question if the universe can exist without a cause because (the concept of) God can exist without a cause.

And what you don't understand about the theists is how they think about God. You constantly compare God to an intra-universal thing. That's not how theists see God.

CyberShy: I think that there are very good reasons to say that the universe as we know it needs a cause.

What cause would that be specifically?

j

I don't know, does that matter?
Can we only discuss the necessarily of a cause if we can identify the cause?
I think it works the other way around, first we must see if we need a cause, if we agree that there's need for a cause we start looking for that cause.

CyberShy: Right now we know that everything we know needs a cause.

You say that... and, "God doesn't need a cause" in the same breath.

There is no evidence to prove there is a God, let alone that God doesn't need a cause.

I obviously talk about all intra-universal things.
Are you trying to debate the issue or is this a word-game for you? Don't tell me that you didn't understand me.

There is no evidence to prove there is a God, let alone that God doesn't need a cause.

Regarding the first: we're not debating that issue right now.
Regarding the 2nd: there's no prove that God needs a cause either.

a perpetuum mobile is a closed system which produces more energy than it consumes. Which obviously is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.

An ever-existing universe (that being the energy/matter which comprises it...) does not necessarily have to be a system which produces more energy than it consumes. (Though it would certainly not always be in the form it is now.) And that since you cannot either create or destroy energy, current laws would suggest the matter/energy actually always has existed in some form.

Small correction: It has to produce at least as much energy as it consumes.

If a universe loses energy it can't be ever existing towards the past, because that would mean that it has been an infinite form of energy in the past somewhere.

Therefore it has to have started to lose energy at one moment in time. It either was a perpetuum mobile before that moment (which is impossible according to our current scientific knowledge) or it came to be at that very moment.

There are no laws of the universe currently that deal with the "cause" of the universe. Remember we are talking about "cause". Or have you forgotten?

'currently'?
Do you agree with me that all intra-universal things have to be caused? Or are there things that do not need to be caused? Are there things about which we are sure that they are uncaused? If so, tell me.

But technically you are right, there's no "Law of causation" as there is a "law of thermodynamics"
But like the theory of evolution is not a scientific law either it's not that weird to work with the theory that's most probably right (within the context of our current scientific knowledge) and that's that everything in this universe needs a cause.

There is no differentiation between the need for "cause" for God or the need for "cause" for the universe. They are both unknowns at this point. You still don't understand what the argument you are ridiculing actually means.

The universe is not as unknown as God is. (scientific speaking) and there are many reasons to believe that the universe needs a cause.
If not, name me some good arguments why we should assume with much certainly that the universe needs no cause.

Not to mention that it doesn't matter if God needs a cause or not. The question if the universe needs a cause is totally independent from the question if God needs a cause.

The one you are espousing doesn't create a "self-causing" universe. It allows for a universe that exists without a "cause". (Whether that's a universe that was "self -causing" or one which just always has existed.)

That's what I'm repeating all the time, a self-causing universe or an uncaused universe.
I'm sorry for not repeating the same long lines in every answer I give to you.

Are you playing word games? "Hey, CS didn't mention 'uncaused' this time, let's slam it around his ears immediately"

I am not trying to prove the universe is one way or another. That's the whole point. You say you understand the rebuttal, but you obviously don't.

Then what are you trying to prove?
If you're 'agnostic' about the question if the universe needs a cause or not, then why do you feel need to defend yourself against me?

I aimed my arrows at Dawkins who claimed that the universe can be causeless if God can be causeless.

If you defend Dawkins because you agree with him, then why do you say things like above? That's not what this topic is about anyway.

(even though it pops up now and then because of the nature of this debate)

Countering the first-cause argument is ridiculously easy. I just ask for their proof. Game over.

Proof for what?
Proof for a cause-needing universe?
Well, since all we scientific know and see and feel around us needs a cause. If one claims that there's a causeless universe then I think that the burden of proof is at their side.

Which you cannot prove...

You can't prove the entire neo-darwinistic theory of evolution either, but you accept it anyway.
I have very good reasons to believe that the universe needs a cause. There's no full-proof indeed. But the odds that the universe need a cause are absolutely bigger then the other way around.

Why do you insist on not being sure about a cause-needing universe? Is there any reason for that?

You cannot start with the conclusion and then work to prove the conclusion based on what you started with. The universe if it was not "caused" is not a thing that has been "caused".

That's philosophy, dude. Talking about things you cannot prove.

You affirm again you don't understand the argument. I have already clearly said that neither God nor the universe can be proven at this time to either have a cause, or not have a cause.

Which makes you a debate-lawyer, not a debater.
Technically you may be right that there's no 100% proof that the universe needs a cause, though every day there are many many scientists using a lot of money to study and think about the theory of evolution which is not 100% full proof either.

Or, if the theory of evolution is a dangerous example here, fill in any form of scientific study and thinking.

Now we're talking about the subject of the cause of the universe, what do you thin, does it have one, or not? What are your ways of reasoning? If you don't want to think along, quit this debate and let those who are interested in philosophical debate have their way.

You're the one making positive claims about the nature of both (that God is ruled by other laws than the universe, and the universe must have a "cause"), and so the burden of proof lies on you.

I've always said that there's no need for God to be ruled by other laws. I've never insisted that he has to live up to other laws.
That's a reaction to Dawkins who apparently claims that God and the universe HAVE to live up to the same laws.
It's Dawkins who started making claims about the unknown.

what do you think about Dawkins claim?
Something else, can you tell me about an atheist with whom you disagree? Are there atheistic books that are bollocks according to you? What atheistic arguments are insane according to you? Or are they all true and perfect?

[Robert]

btw, if Plato or Socrates or Epicures have to live up to your "there's no proof" way of thinking then they were the worst philosophers in history.

One more question: do you know the difference between an example and an argument?

Last question: what is in your opinion, without having proof, the most logical answer for the cause/no cause of the universe debate and what are your reasons to think that. (or if you call it 'even', then still tell me what arguments you have to call it 'even'.) (and please don't tell me "we have no proof" since the world will stop turning around the moment we stop having opinions as long as we have no prove.)

[Elok]

Originally posted by Dry
I assume he is trolling.

The video shows a phone conversation between the 2 atheist speakers (radio talk) and a creationist listener, claiming he has a proof of creation.
The guy gives usual circular logic, personnal belief, invoking the so-called obvious, false dichotomic arguments of most creationists.
After a while, fed-up by the guy providing no proof at all, one of the speakers, just shuts the line.

Yes, but from a creationist POV that's a clear sign of censorship. Actually, I guess that video could be anything short of a creationist storming the set and beating the two atheists with a baseball bat with a nail in it, and I could imagine a creationist crying persecution over it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Here's an interesting idea. These guys are arguing that schools in the UK should teach something about creationism, or at least discuss it when students ask in order to keep the youth from shutting their minds to the idea of evolution. Apparently there has been a rise in students who don't believe in evolution because of the influx of Muslims. ( didn't we used to have Muslim posters who claimed that Muslims had no problem with accepting evolution because the Koran's version of creation was rather brief?) Some educators in the UK think that shutting out discussion of creationism is harmful, it encourages the students to react by shutting their minds to the concepts of evolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm

[Aeson]

I lost my response in a power outtage just now... it's mostly the same stuff again anyways, and I don't feel like typing it out again just to go around in circles any further.

Basically we disagree on whether or not in a situation dealing with an unknown "cause" (or lack thereof), that the universe should be afforded the same possibility as God. Though I think we both agree that both should be afforded the same possibility, but we disagree on the extent of the "unknown" nature of the universe's situation.

I'll answer your questions though.

Originally posted by CyberShy
It's Dawkins who started making claims about the unknown.

It's obvious that Dawkins was responding to a mode of thinking that God didn't require a cause. It's equally obvious that the debate about God and the universe, their causes or lack thereof, did not start with Dawkins.

(Even though who started it is inconsequential, facts are facts.)

what do you think about Dawkins claim?

I've already said that I consider, "If God can exist without cause, then the universe can exist without cause" a valid statement within the context I have outlined. We have gone over it extensively enough.

If that's not what you meant by "Dawkins claim" I'll have to ask you to be more specific.

Something else, can you tell me about an atheist with whom you disagree?

Basically all of them on YouTube.

But seriously, I don't agree or disagree with people, I agree or disagree with concepts. People tend to espouse various concepts, some which I agree with, some with I disagree with.

Are there atheistic books that are bollocks according to you?

I don't think I've read any "atheistic books". If I did, it would have been for a story. (Much the same as "theistic books", though that wasn't always the case.) I don't find other people's thoughts about why God does or does not exist interesting enough to read a whole book on it.

What atheistic arguments are insane according to you?

Positive claims that God doesn't exist, or that there is no existence other than the physical/material one we can observe. Basically, the claims of "proof of the negative".

Claims about the inherent derogatory nature of religion or belief. Claims about agnostics being "fence sitters" or too afraid to "join a side". Claims about there being no need or basis for morality without a God. Claims that evolution and a creator are incompatible.

(Some of the above are also claims made by some theists as well.)

I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Last question: what is in your opinion, without having proof, the most logical answer for the cause/no cause of the universe debate and what are your reasons to think that. (or if you call it 'even', then still tell me what arguments you have to call it 'even'.) (and please don't tell me "we have no proof" since the world will stop turning around the moment we stop having opinions as long as we have no prove.)

If I had to choose, I would go with the universe having always existed in some form. For one, it's the simpler explanation, since no "creator" (conscious being or not) is necessary. For another, it makes more sense with the conservation of energy. I don't pretend either makes it the "right" answer.

Either way though, I don't put much faith in it.

[DanS]

Palin is perfectly correct. Teach intelligent design in schools. All the kids will wade through the **** to get to the truth.

[Q Classic]

Like the big plastic card companies, you give American kids too much credit, DanS.

Most of the kids won't understand what the hubbub is about.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
Palin is perfectly correct. Teach intelligent design in schools. All the kids will wade through the **** to get to the truth.

No they won't. They'll study the textbook and regergitate it for the test and then forget it within 2 weeks.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberShy

No he doesn't. All he needs is to show that the universe may need no cause.

Ok, that's true.
Well, prove it.

I just did

(1) It appears possible that time is an intra-universal phenomenon (you have no real evidence that it is not). Therefore, it does not appear necessary that there was a time before the beginning of the universe.

Time is not a key element of cause.
Cause is about something that makes something that doesn't exist existing.

Do you know what a parallel argument is? Because it looks to me as if you have no idea.

(2) It appears possible that causation is an intra-universal phenomenon (you have no evidence that it is not). Therefore, it appears not necessary for us to believe that the universe itself requires a cause.

True.
You just gave an argument why God may need no cause.

I'm not sure that is true, but even if it is, it does not prove your point. You need to prove that God necessarily exists. If you say that God may need no cause, or may exist or that the universe may require a transcendent first cause, then the cosmological argument fails, because it needs to prove that these things are a matter of necessity, not possibility.

Since the universe is nothing more then the sum of all intra-universal things the laws that apply upon the intra-universal things also apply upon the universe itself. If all parts of a bike are red, then the bike itself is red as well.

You are assuming that the mereology of the universe is like the mereology of the bicycle. That is not something I would just assume.

Your argument makes sence if you can either
a) find a part of the universe that's not also an intra-universal thing
b) make clear that that part may need no cause.

You are again assuming that our universe is all there is. If our universe is to have been created by God, or be causally dependent on him, it follows that he could exist when it did not (that's called ontological priority). If our universe was brought into being, then he existed when it did not. Either way, our universe does not equal the sum total of reality.

Moreover, there is on the face of it no obvious metaphysical problem with the existence of other universes or realities. This is especially true if you believe in the God of the cosmological argument, since he is of necessity universe-transcendent if it is true, and that means you must believe that our universe is not identical with the entirety of reality.

Now, if you admit the possibility of the existence of realities other than our own, then you either admit that these are closed causal systems or they are not (it's sort of like how you have to admit that they can't exist in space, since each one is infinite, yet bounded). If they are not closed causal systems, then how on earth can they interact with each other? On the other hand, if they are closed causal systems, then the cosmological argument fails.

But either case seems plausible. It may be the case that (a) our universe is all there is, and the cosmological argument fails, or it may be (b) that there are other realities which either are or (c) are not in causal relationships with our universe.

You need to prove at the very least that it is necessarily true that (a) and (c) are false and (b) is true. But since for all we know, any one of the three may be true, it does not follow that God must necessarily exist. Which one of (a), (b) or (c) is true is not a scientific question, since science seems limited to our own universe. It's not a question of faith, since anyone could have faith in any of the three. Rather, it must be a metaphysical question, and we seem to be reduced to speculation in that case (as we seem to be with most metaphysical questions).

All you have proved, at most, is that there might be a first cause. Whoopty doo. There might be gorgeous Amazon women in an alternate universe who revere my likeness as a God of fertility and base their whole civilization on the day someone who looks like me visits their planet and makes them his slaves (this I think proves that we do not live in the best of all possible worlds).

Again, unless you prove that a first cause must exist of necessity, your argument doesn't work.

If you can't do that, then your argument only applies to God, who doesn't nescecarily have to comply to the 'law of causation' because he's not a part of the universe, or in your words: an intra-universal being/thing.

This is crap. God may as well be a peanut if this is true. God must be transcendent in order for the first cause argument to work, or our universe will have no ontological dependence on him.

[Agathon]

That's philosophy, dude. Talking about things you cannot prove.

I don't think you understand philosophy. Recent trends in philosophy have tended to focus on attempts to limn the bounds of the provable.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No they won't. They'll study the textbook and regergitate it for the test and then forget it within 2 weeks.

That's actually a very sensible and probably accurate observation. How'd it come out of you, Kid?