[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 40 KB, 766x450, 1281042323123.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549486 No.2549486 [Reply] [Original]

If everything natural must have a cause, doesn't that imply the First Cause was supernatural?

>> No.2549502

Implying there was ever a "first cause"

>> No.2549518

>>2549486

Sure is Thomas Aquinas in here.

>> No.2549520

>>2549502
>implying infinite regress

>> No.2549576

OP makes several unstated assumptions that have not been established:

1. Not established that "everything natural must have a cause".
2. Not established that supernatural causes exist.
3. Not established that there was a first natural "effect".

(lol, serious answer.)

>> No.2549580

>>2549520
>Implying that's a problem.

>> No.2549588
File: 11 KB, 323x246, 1297789747296.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549588

>Cosmological argument

>> No.2549593
File: 34 KB, 600x480, 1267363273015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549593

>>2549486
>everything natural must have a cause

Why would you think such a shitty thing? Are you in highschool? and engineer?

>> No.2549594

Nope.

>> No.2549602

>>2549576

This.

And even if you grant that everything natural must have a cause, and that supernatural causes are possible in principle, and that these was an identified first natural effect, you still cannot put any traits or aspects to the supernatural cause implied by this.

>> No.2549604

The cosmological argument summed up:

1. Everything needs a cause except the initial conditions of the universe (because nothing can happen before time)

2a. Assume that deities are real

2b. Assume the universe was caused by one

3. Therefore, allah exists and islam is right.

>> No.2549608
File: 73 KB, 508x665, 20100311.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549608

>> No.2549609

>>2549486
if you have a cosmological question about the supernatural, search youtube for a guy called "andromedaswake", he has more than likely answered/debunked your question. his language is also pretty easy on non-scientific ears

>> No.2550413

LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE. LET IT DIE.

>> No.2550478

>implying the universe was "caused"

herp derp next thing you'll be saying is there was an event before the big bang or there's something north of the north pole

>> No.2550494
File: 106 KB, 600x600, atheistsreligious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2550494

OP needs to go back to /b/

>> No.2550499

>>2549486
>If everything natural must have a cause, doesn't that imply the First Cause was supernatural?
No. There might be an infinite chain of causation.

I still reject your premise as not compellingly true based on the available evidence, which means I accept the possibility of a universe with a beginning without a cause.

>> No.2550989

Creationism is a science, just like Christianity.

>> No.2551021

>>2550478
>implying the universe wasn't caused
enjoy your fairy tales

>> No.2551027

>>2550499
> I accept the possibility of a universe with a beginning without a cause.
If you're going to accept absurdities, you might as well accept a religion.

>> No.2551041

>>2551027
Absurd why? How is believing in a god without a beginning less of an absurdity?

>> No.2551080

Gnostic Atheism is equally as illogical as Gnostic Theism.

Be an Agnostic X or Y, don't pretend you know shit. And don't belittle others for having a different hypothesis.

>> No.2551091

>>2550494
>implying religion trolls aren't all atheists

>> No.2551093

>>2551080
BUT GNOSTIC ATHEIST IS THE RIGHT ANSWER! I KNOW THAT THERE IS NOT A THEIST GOD - NOT FOR SURE - BUT THAT IS THE SITUATION PROVED BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT BASED ON THE CURRENT EVIDENCE.

ANYONE ELSE IS IGNORANT OR DELUDED.

>> No.2551129

To justify a need for an initial cause then first you need to prove that emotion/humanity/etc can be more then an algorithm, an act that is a massive fallacy itself.

Without real meaning there is no way to prove that an act of god is required to set the chain of causation in motion.

>> No.2551131
File: 4 KB, 120x87, 62c5031a_8556_29e4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2551131

>>2551091
touche.

Also I am surprised at you guys. Pleasantly surprised, if you try to have a decent conversation that even passively mentions god on reddit anywhere, there is a shitstorm of the pseudo-intellectual atheists.

But to answer OP, the M theory (the combines 5 separate sting theories, although offering no empirical evidence) asserts that at a quantum level matter is literally capable and inevitably will materialize out of literally nothing. Now it is a far-fetched theory and not complete at all. But I would reccomend reading up on Stephen Hawking's stuff as he sums it up nicely.

That being said it still sort of begs the question on how the 11 dimensions are able to coexist so beautifully and systematically and abide by such similar laws etc by chance.

>> No.2551174

The supernatural is not really in any sense, supernatural. If it were to exist not only must it follow a fundamental logic, but it must also either have been causated from something, or nothing.

Does that sound practical to you? It's more realistic to not need a god then have a whole pi-fuck of supernatural entities causating eachother in an infinite stream.

>> No.2551209

>>2551174
>>2551131
>>2551129
So can we all agree that god is not necessary? These answers seem pretty definitive.

>> No.2551497

>>2551174
Logic itself is part of the supernatural. The supernatural is necessary for the natural (which is the physical) to exist, because it relies precisely on things like logic.

>> No.2551503

>>2551129
No, the massive fallacy is try to explain consciousness algorithmically. That doesn't really speak to purpose though. You don't need "real meaning" for natural things to need causes.
>>2551209
yeah, no.