Asking "What caused God" is special pleading.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, for quite a while I've been annoyed at the number of people asking "What caused God?", as if they found some really clever argument. But really, it is no more than special pleading. They way they figure seems to be that they take the rule "every event must have a cause" from the Law of Cause and Effect to mean "everything whether event or not must have a cause". Then they apply that to God, asking "what caused God?"

 

Now, most people, I would assume, are familiar with the concept that God supposedly has always existed. Even if not, when made aware of this fact they don't drop the argument. Now something that has always existed does not need a cause, since there is no event (no change from before to after). Asking what caused no change when nothing happened is rather silly.

 

But, if one does not accept this, then it is only fair to ask the same of other things that have always existed. What caused numbers, for example? Claiming that numbers don't need a cause while claiming that God does, is special pleading.

 

Oh, and I don't believe in any First Cause, as infinite regression makes more sense to me.

[iNow]

So, for quite a while I've been annoyed at the number of people asking "What caused God?", as if they found some really clever argument. But really, it is no more than special pleading. They way they figure seems to be that they take the rule "every event must have a cause" from the Law of Cause and Effect to mean "everything whether event or not must have a cause". Then they apply that to God, asking "what caused God?"

Well, as best I can tell, Mr.Skeptic, what you've done here is to present a strawman of what usually happens.

 

 

When people ask, "what caused god," it is almost always in response to a theist or believer who makes the following argument:

 

"Something cannot come from nothing, therefore god exists."

 

 

All that respondents are really doing is using/following the theists/believers own logic consistently, and the issue they present is this:

 

"If something cannot come from nothing, then neither can your god."

 

 

In essence, your claims of special pleading would be more accurately directed to the theist/believer making the above argument.

 

The response you decry is simply a matter of showing the false logic being used by the theist/believer, and demonstrating the internal inconsistency of their core assertion. If you get annoyed by people applying consistent logic and rationality, then that is an issue internal to you, and really has nothing whatsoever to do with the people responding to the argument.

[Sisyphus]

For the sake of avoiding a religious debate, why don't we ask, "is questioning the validity of a first cause special pleading?"

 

And in response, I don't really see it. Even for something that "has always existed" and thus can't be classified as an "event." Because at some point the "always existed" translates into a "first event." You wouldn't say numbers are a first cause of anything, would you?

 

If anything, it's generally a response to special pleading of an exception to the postulate, "every event must be causally linked to a prior event." The "first cause" is invented because of this postulate, then promptly deemed an exception to it for vague, mystical reasons which somehow can't possibly apply to the first event it's supposedly required to explain.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Sisyphus

[Mr Skeptic]

"If something cannot come from nothing, then neither can your god."

 

Well, you are making a strawman of what theists believe. What theist believes that God came from nothing? The Christian God has supposedly always existed, so he couldn't have "come" as that would require not having always existed. You're asserting that they believe the opposite of what they believe.

 

A strawman is no better than special pleading.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For the sake of avoiding a religious debate, why don't we ask, "is questioning the validity of a first cause special pleading?"

 

I don't believe in a First Cause. That, however, does not nullify the Law of Cause and Effect being applied to this universe and the theories which require a start for this universe.

[Sisyphus]

BTW, in case my implication wasn't clear, I personally don't think "every event must be causally linked to a prior event" is necessarily valid. Is there anything actually wrong with considering the universe as an object with a finite time dimension?

 

Compare with spatial dimensions. Example: a crystal structure. Looking at it in the middle, you might see that every atom is linked to an atom to its left. If you lived your whole life there, you might find it intuitive, that every atom must be linked to an atom to its left. But this isn't a law - there is a leftmost edge, and there is no logical contradiction in that.

 

Besides, even in this universe we have events without direct causes. What causes an atom to decay at one point in time rather than another?

[swansont]

"What caused X?" is a reasonable response to someone insisting "Everything must have a cause"

 

And if one invokes "X always existed", why is it the only thing that could have always existed?

 

Under those conditions, the special pleading is on the other side of the argument.

[Mr Skeptic]

So then what caused numbers?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"What caused X?" is a reasonable response to someone insisting "Everything must have a cause"

 

And if one invokes "X always existed", why is it the only thing that could have always existed?

 

Under those conditions, the special pleading is on the other side of the argument.

 

While you give an example of how a theist can do special pleading, this is not at all a requirement for asking "what caused the Big Bang?". Nor does it justify special pleading even if the other side did it first. And do note in my first post how I mention people confusing what exactly the Law of Cause and Effect says.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

So then what caused numbers?

Wrong type of question since numbers aren't particularly a phenomenon, they're a definition.

 

People 'caused' numbers by inventing the definition of the concept of numbers. Why does that concept exist? Because of the properties of the universe.

 

And I will say again (because I do believe we've had this as a very short back-and-forth in the other thread, which I suspect was the cause of starting this one) that the fact we may not *know* a first cause of something doesn't mean it has none, nor does it mean that we are CLAIMING that it *can't* have any.

 

In the usual question of the special-pleading related to God, it's not like it's equated to the Big Bang (in which case I have no problem with it) but that while the person evoking God claims that the Big Bang *MUST* have a cause, God does not have to have one -- which is absolutely special pleading.

 

The Big Bang's "cause" is unknown (for now?) but it's not defined that there is no cause. We just don't know it.

[john5746]

I would add that just because the universe(or anything) has internal events and evolves, says nothing about the need to have a beginning. You must assume a beginning point, then ask what caused that beginning.

 

Per wikepedia, one instance of special pleading is:

"claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly"

 

I think the term "God" fits that.

[bascule]

Now, most people, I would assume, are familiar with the concept that God supposedly has always existed.

 

I think the general sentiment is that if you believe some things (like God) can be eternal, why can't that apply to the universe itself? If God can be exempt from a first cause, why can't the universe be as well?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the general sentiment is that if you believe some things (like God) can be eternal, why can't that apply to the universe itself? If God can be exempt from a first cause, why can't the universe be as well?

 

Oh, but the same does apply to the universe (and you won't hear the same people who ask "what caused God" asking "what caused the universe"). It is just that some theories for the creation of the universe require a cause. Some of them, like God, cannot have a cause. An example of such is the cyclic universe model that cycles between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch, the universe itself being eternal and as such does not need and cannot have a cause. Exactly the same as with God, except that people don't ask what caused it.

 

The Big Bang clearly defines the start of something and as such needs a cause per the Law of Cause and Effect. Other models of the universe do not, and neither need nor can have a cause.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Wrong type of question since numbers aren't particularly a phenomenon, they're a definition.

 

People 'caused' numbers by inventing the definition of the concept of numbers. Why does that concept exist? Because of the properties of the universe.

 

I think you'll find that numbers are independent of the properties of the universe, and of humans. Certainly we named them but they were already there. But my point is that numbers don't need a cause because they have always existed. It was exactly the point that it is the wrong type of question, exactly the same as asking what caused an eternally existing god.

 

And I will say again (because I do believe we've had this as a very short back-and-forth in the other thread, which I suspect was the cause of starting this one) that the fact we may not *know* a first cause of something doesn't mean it has none, nor does it mean that we are CLAIMING that it *can't* have any.

 

The point is that events must have causes and non-events cannot. The Big Bang is clearly an event. The existence of a God is not an event, and so cannot have a cause, and asking for a cause is ridiculous. The same goes with numbers and eternal universes, which also cannot have causes.

 

In the usual question of the special-pleading related to God, it's not like it's equated to the Big Bang (in which case I have no problem with it) but that while the person evoking God claims that the Big Bang *MUST* have a cause, God does not have to have one -- which is absolutely special pleading.

 

The Big Bang's "cause" is unknown (for now?) but it's not defined that there is no cause. We just don't know it.

 

So you are admitting that the Big Bang has a cause, and complaining that people ask what it is? But why should God need a cause? Point to the event in question please.

[mooeypoo]

I think you'll find that numbers are independent of the properties of the universe, and of humans. Certainly we named them but they were already there. But my point is that numbers don't need a cause because they have always existed. It was exactly the point that it is the wrong type of question, exactly the same as asking what caused an eternally existing god.

Though I might tend to agree with you intuitively, my point is that you can't make that statement 100%. You don't know that numbers always existed.

 

But that's besides the point; special pleading is about removing a specific 'subject' from a set of rules that is valid to ALL. The claim that 'god always existed' is only special pleading when the claimant makes that claim *while* claiming everything else *must* have a cause.

 

The claim that god is different and that it's the ONLY thing that can't have a cause is special pleading.

 

If a person makes a claim that NOTHING should have a cause then adding god into it is not special pleading, but the reality is that religious folk who make this claim *do* set God out of the equation, more often than not. Much more often than not.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

But, likewise, claiming that God needs a cause while simultaneously claiming that other things that have the same attribute (having always existed, such as the cyclic universe) don't need a cause, is also special pleading.

 

I suppose the test would be asking people whether other things that have always existed need a cause. My suspicion is that both sides would agree that other things that have always existed don't need a cause.

[mooeypoo]

But, likewise, claiming that God needs a cause while simultaneously claiming that other things that have the same attribute (having always existed, such as the cyclic universe) don't need a cause, is also special pleading.

Might be fair enough, but that's misrepresenting the usual argument.

 

I do agree that god doesn't necessarily need a common cause *just like the big bang doesn't*. In which case, I see more scientific and rational value to prefer to theory of the big bang - which ahs more proof to it and predictions and helps us actually UNDERSTAND the world around us - to the concept of a god.

 

Again, tho, that's a bit of a misrepresentation of the usual argument. When this 'primary cause' argument usually comes up, it USUALLY comes up as special pleading.

 

 

As for your test, I usually do try to ask people if other theories do require a cause (unlike god), and if they answer positive, then I definitely point out that it's special pleading.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think the point of the "But what caused God?" argument is to justify a causeless universe while denigrating a causeless God. The point is to tell those arguing "the Universe needs a cause" that if God doesn't need a cause, the universe may not need one either.

 

In other words, it's not a real demand for cause of God -- it's just pointing out that a double standard exists in that some theists demand a cause for the universe while not demanding a cause for God.

[mooeypoo]

I don't think the point of the "But what caused God?" argument is to justify a causeless universe while denigrating a causeless God. The point is to tell those arguing "the Universe needs a cause" that if God doesn't need a cause, the universe may not need one either.

 

In other words, it's not a real demand for cause of God -- it's just pointing out that a double standard exists in that some theists demand a cause for the universe while not demanding a cause for God.

Yes, I agree, my point is consistency. If one needs a cause,the other needs one too and vise versa, otherwise it's special pleading (coming back to the topic of the thread).

[Mr Skeptic]

I do agree that god doesn't necessarily need a common cause *just like the big bang doesn't*.

 

This I have to disagree with. Events require causes. Are you saying the Big Bang is not an event? How can you justify that?

[mooeypoo]

This I have to disagree with. Events require causes. Are you saying the Big Bang is not an event? How can you justify that?

God is said to be the 'first creator' or 'initiator', whichever. Do you not notice, though, that you're putting this god under a different set of rules than *everything else* ?

 

How's that not special pleading?

[Mr Skeptic]

I'll say once more, I don't believe in any First Cause.

 

And what rule is being applied differently to God than to other things?

[john5746]

I'll say once more, I don't believe in any First Cause.

 

And what rule is being applied differently to God than to other things?

 

For God to be necessary as a first cause, it must be the ONLY thing that doesn't require a cause, otherwise we can just accept that the universe did not have a cause.

 

Are you saying that maybe one can argue that God and the universe did not have a cause and that God is causing events, such as the big bang? I guess that's an idea, but a heck of a stretch to fill a gap

 

 

This I have to disagree with. Events require causes. Are you saying the Big Bang is not an event? How can you justify that?

 

Remember that we are at the quantum level, which I won't pretend to understand. But, doesn't that mean that while there was a cause, it isn't necessarily in the sense we experience them in the macro? I guess the argument for god would then be uncertainty?

[JohnB]

I think that one of the problems with this type of debate is that everybody is assuming what is meant by the word "God". Specifically the Judeo-Christian one.

 

However, it is possible that this Universe has a creator, a "God", who evolved in a previous one.

 

Hence it is possible that if the Universe is cyclic, then the first cause of the Universal progression is unknowable due to the time factor, but the evolution of "God" is not.

 

It should always be remembered that the question "Is there a God, the creator?" is totally separate from the question "Is this religions interpretation of God, the creator, correct?" The two should not be confused.

 

The first can be true while the second is false.

[Mr Skeptic]

Are you saying that maybe one can argue that God and the universe did not have a cause and that God is causing events, such as the big bang? I guess that's an idea, but a heck of a stretch to fill a gap

 

I'm saying, as is everyone else, that the Big Bang is an event. An event needs a cause. Thus it cannot be a final explanation of the universe. Other universes do not need a cause. But the Big Bang does!

[Galindo]

So then what caused numbers?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Money and currency caused numbers.

[Phi for All]

Money and currency caused numbers.

Not true. Bartering happened before currency, and you need numbers for that as well. Even early hunters needed a numbering system.

[mooeypoo]

It's a definition that *describes* a phenomena, it's not a phenomena by itself.

 

It's like saying 'seconds' weren't invented. Of course they were; units of time help us count time, but they're *our* definition. Same with numbers.