Whenever an atheist resorts to this question, they might as well say ” I have nothing else to offer therefore I concede that I have lost the debate”. This is the dumbest_question_that_atheists can pose. It belies a befuddled understanding of the Cosmological argument and concedes that the universe exists along a chain of causal factors where certain events (x) lead to other events (y). The atheist who offers such a ridiculous question has concede to the following premise.
P1 A *chain* of causation must be finite. Notice, the atheist who offers the query “Who made God?” is acknowledging that causation exists as a chain and is simply attempting to inquire as to the origins of the first cause. Symbolically we could represent this in this manner: Here is a list of causes beginning with the first cause (x1). X1->X2->X3. Suppose this is my argument X1 caused X2 which caused X3 to wit the Atheist replies “I agree that X2 and X3 have a cause but what caused X1?
X1 is uncaused. Doesn’t this seem irrational? No, in fact the theistic position is much more reasonable than the atheistic one. X1 is not a finite effect. Every contigent existent has a cause and is an effect of prior causation. The first cause, in this example X1 is a Necessary *Cause* and is not bound up in contigency. The chain of causation begins with a necessary being that is not the effect of prior causation. The atheistic position posits an uncaused cause that is neither contigent nor necessary.
A *chain* of causation must be finite. — Why?
By: orandat on September 10, 2011
at 10:16 am
Simple: a chain of causation that is infinite leads to an infinite regress.
By: blogginbaldguy on September 10, 2011
at 11:36 am
What’s wrong with an infinite regress?
By: orandat on September 10, 2011
at 1:07 pm
Prima Facie there is nothing *wrong* with an infinite regress unless as in this case the regress is used to explain some prior event. In which case there is a difference between infinite regresses. Some are benign while others are vicious. In this case the regress is vicious as there is no way to explain prior causes. In other words if event (x) is explained by event (y) and event (y) is explained by event (q) then no explanation can ever be attained.
By: blogginbaldguy on September 10, 2011
at 8:25 pm
The question “Who made God?” does not come out of nowhere. It is in direct response to claims made by believers.
Believer says “everything has to have been created. Thus, God.” Non-believer asks “who, then, created God?” Believer says “no one.” To which the non-believer says “then your first statement is false.”
By: NotAScientist on September 12, 2011
at 8:31 am
Your comment encapsulates the common misunderstanding of the cosmological argument. *Believers* do not say that *everything* has to have been created. They say “everything that is contingent* has to have been created. The argument that you are offering which is self-referentially incoherent is *not* the cosmological argument.
By: blogginbaldguy on September 12, 2011
at 12:00 pm
So what believers do is create a special category and put their proposed deity inside it.
Almost as if they were pleading specially for something…
By: NotAScientist on September 12, 2011
at 12:55 pm
No, this does not entail special pleading. The are substantive differences between necessity and contingency. If someone was to argue that all beings are contingent including God but God as a contigent being was exempted from an antecedent cause this would be a case of special pleading and fallacious.
By: blogginbaldguy on September 12, 2011
at 1:16 pm