&quot:The argument for causation proves that God exists&quot: Do you agree? Who might disagree?

My teacher asked me this question after she knew I learnt about causation. This is what I told her:
I disagree because I’m an Athiest, which means I don’t believe in this first cause and that I believe the scientists theories. Science proves that the Earth was created in billions of years, as well as the universe and we have the evidence for it. Scientists, Astronomers, biologists and those chemistry people (and more) have put their backs to research and use all the effort they could as a human being. When somebody comes and says the world was created in exactly six days by some numinous feeling that tells them God exists. It only takes a little imagination.

Someone may disagree with me because… I don’t know why someone would disagree with me :/


So… my teacher was amazed and told me if I found out why someone would disagree with me by next lesson, she’ll cancel all the detentions (because all the detentions were to do with this). HELP MEEEEE!!!! XD

There is no proof that any god exists, and the honest theists will admit that.

Completely. Finally, someone gets it. THANK YOU. While I’m a polytheist and have my own beliefs in multiple deities, among other religious things, I’m also aware that my guess is as good as anyone else’s. Will we eventually prove things one way or another? Perhaps, but for the moment, it’s impossible. NONE of us can prove or disprove “God”, if it’s a god, multiple gods, a goddess, and just which one of the many we humans have worshipped over the millennia. We believe, but beliefs are not the same as KNOWING. None of us will know until we die and the whole point of death is that we don’t come back from it. Ever. And I don’t count NDEs because those are a gray area. People who have them say they’re real, but nobody honestly knows for sure with solid proof that they’re real, honest, spiritual experiences or merely an illusion caused by a dying or traumatized brain. It’s a gray area, simply because there isn’t enough data to prove one way or another, no more than proving or disproving God or the afterlife. Until we can find some way to prove things or a deity of some sort appears to us, your guess is as good as mine.

Here are some definitions of causation that I found online:

the action of causing or producing.

the relation of cause to effect; causality.

anything that produces an effect; cause.

the act or agency which produces an effect.

The question is, if any given phenomenon has a cause, then what was the cause of our universe.

It is possible to ask questions that do not have answers

What caused Moses to make a joke?

What caused my home to be built in 1917?

What caused water to exist on the moon?

What caused the universe?

What causes carbon to exist in more than one form?

What has caused me to be unable to find my car keys?

What caused Obama to do precisely what he is doing at this moment?

You and I don’t have the answers to these questions for a variety of reasons. How does this prove that there is a magical clam that produced all these things to happen? Does this prove that an overweight unicorn caused these things?

No, it simply means that we have asked questions that for some reason we can’t answer.

In other words, while it seems that everything has a cause, our ability to discern the cause is limited by our intelligence, knowledge, or sensitivity to physical phenomena. The only thing we know for sure when we can’t answer a question of causality is that we can’t answer the question.

In light of all the evidence for a beginning of the space-time universe, the Beginner must be outside the space-time universe. When God is suggested as the Beginner, skeptics are quick to ask the age-old question, “Then who made God? If everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause too!” The law of causality is the very foundation of science. Science is a search for causes, and that search is based on our consistent observation that everything that has a beginning has a cause. In fact, the question points out how seriously we take the law of causality. It’s taken for granted that virtually everything needs a cause.

So why then doesn’t God need a cause? Because the skeptical contention misunderstands the law of causality. The law of causality does not say that everything needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause. “But wait,” the skeptic will protest, “if you can have an eternal God, then I can have an eternal universe! After all, if the universe is eternal, then it did not have a cause.” Yes, it is logically possible that the universe is eternal and therefore didn’t have a cause. In fact, it is one of only two possibilities: Either the universe, or something outside the universe is eternal. Since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed; we have only two choices: The universe, or something that caused the universe.

The problem for the skeptic is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. For all scientific and philosophical evidence tells us the universe cannot be eternal. So by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with only other option, something outside the universe is eternal. When you get right down to it, there are only two possibilities for anything that exists: Either, one, it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or, two, it had a beginning and was caused by something else, it can’t be self-caused, because it would have had to exist already in order to cause anything. According to the overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must be caused by something else, by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but it is not based on those religions, it is based on good reason and evidence.

So what is this First Cause like? One might think you need to rely on a bible or some so-called religious revelation to answer that question, but, again, we don’t need anyone’s scripture to figure that out. Einstein was right when he said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” Religion can be informed and confirmed by science, as it is by the cosmological argument. Namely, we can discover some characteristics of the First Cause just from the evidence from the big bang. From that evidence alone, we can know the First Cause must be:

1. Self-existent, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial, since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter. In other words, it is without limits, or infinite.

2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.

3. Supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision. Oxford physicists Roger Penrose said one parameter, the “original phase-space volume,” required fine-tuning to an accuracy of one part in ten billion multiplied by itself one hundred and twenty three times. Penrose remarked that it would be impossible to even write down that number in full, since it would require more zeros than the number of elementary particles in the universe! This showed, he said, “the precision needed to set the universe on its course.”

4. Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe, an impersonal force has no ability to make choices.

These characteristics of the First Cause are exactly the characteristics theists ascribe to God. Again, these characteristics are not based on someone’s religion or subjective experience. They are drawn from the scientific evidence, and they help us see a critically important section of the box top to this puzzle we call life.

Entropy and causality used as a proof for God’s existence

by Matt Slick

The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not “run down.”
1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy was gone.
2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
2. Because the universe had a beginning, it is not infinite in size.
1. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
3. All events have causes.
1. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
1. We’ve already established that the universe cannot be infinitely old.
2. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
3. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
1. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
1. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than, or equal to, itself.
2. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
1. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
2. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
3. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which is finite.
1. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
4. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.
1. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
2. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
5. This uncaused cause is supernatural.
1. By supernatural, it is meant completely ‘other’ than the universe and is not the product of it.
1. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
1. God’s existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
2. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
3. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.


There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy — via natural processes.

I know that this doesn’t make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”

For more, watch the video at the 1st link – “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss

For more about the Big Bang, see the 2nd link.

“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.”
— Isaac Asimov

Quite simple; the argument for causation, whether God exists or not, is utterly, utterly stupid. It basically states: ‘Everything needs to come from somewhere… except this omnipotent, sentient being more vast and complex than the thing we say needs to be created because it’s so vast and complex. And no, we don’t have any basis for claiming that this first cause needs to be a sentient superbeing, or any basis for exempting that superbeing from the rule about everything needing a creator. So there.’

Even if a creator deity existed, this argument would still be complete and utter nonsense.

Gazoo “Ask anyone who works in quantum mechanics and they will tell you there are a lot of things that don’t have a cause.”

thats just anther way of them saying , they don’t know, because they can’t and will not know everything bc, they are not God, when you said that its like your not giving God the credit for his work… I believe in causation, everything happens for a reason, that right there was just another way of saying God did it, to me…. believeing that things “just happen” is so illogical, and some people complain about our (beliefs) how much sense does it make to think the earth created itself? hows the earth going to do that? or things just happen… thats leaving way too many things to chance . its like their saying… well we don’t know how the earth was made.. but God didn’t do it >.>

I disagree with your teacher. The correct quote is:

“The argument for causation proves that Brahma exists”

The “First Cause” argument is a Special Pleading fallacy.

Anyone who believes in God would disagree with you, although they would have no logical basis for that disagreement.

The argument for causation always leads back to one question: who or what created god?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *