Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We've all seen it before; it's probably the most common answer to the question "provide evidence for God's existence", with Thomas Aquinas arguing it almost 1000 years ago.

Too bad it's complete crap.

Several issues here:

1. It only "supports" the existence of a creating force. It does not support monotheism; nothing precludes the creating force from being a race of aliens. It does not support any specific religion. Even if the conclusion drawn from the premise were valid and there were a God, how do you know that it's yours? How do you prove very specific portions of your creation myth, such as, for example, Adam and Eve being created in the Garden of Eden, beyond simply proving that some creator exist?

2. Nothing in the argument suggests that there exists an afterlife, or that the creator is benevolent or partial to humans. The above two qualities have no logical basis or empirical evidence, and are therefore simply sentimental and emotional desires projected onto the supposedly logical religion as "truth".

Additionally, nothing suggests that your god is almighty or perfect; indeed, that the universe is clearly imperfect suggests quite the opposite. Religions respond by coming up with convoluted myths to explain why the creation of a perfect creator is imperfect, which doesn't make any sense: there's no logical need to maintain the conclusion of a perfect creator, so adding in additional facts to explain this disparity, rather than simply declaring the creator imperfect, is a blatant violation of occam's razor.

In Science, or any empirical method of gathering data, we don't assume information or facts without evidence or any necessity for them to exist. And yet every religion takes the "first cause" justification to mean "invent anything that sounds convenient, even if it serves no purpose".

3. It establishes a blatant double standard, because the obvious follow up question is "then who created your god"? Most religious persons would respond by handwaving the issue and declaring that god doesn't need to have a cause, which...yeah, you can see the hypocrisy here, can you?

4. Following up on point 3, occam's razor tells us that it's more logical to assume less than more. There is a hole in the current scientific theory: you can't "explain" why everything exists. But adding in God does nothing to lessen this hole; it widens it by creating the question of why God exists, and God is more complex than a universe, and therefore solves nothing. It is simpler and more believable to assume the existence of something comparatively simplistic (the universe), then something infinitely complex (God).

Basically, you've said, the problem with the First Cause argument is that it doesn't address questions or prove conclusions it doesn't attempt to address or reach. i.e. the existence of a benevolent God or of Adam and Eve etc...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Basically, you've said, the problem with the First Cause argument is that it doesn't address questions or prove conclusions it doesn't attempt to address or reach. i.e. the existence of a benevolent God or of Adam and Eve etc...

Yeah, exactly. It's a smokescreen justification that bears little resemblance to what it's actually supposed to justify.

It's like you have contentions A, B, C, D and E, and then you weakly justify "A", and so conclude that the rest can just go along for the ride.

Originally posted by Master Han
Yeah, exactly. It's a smokescreen justification that bears little resemblance to what it's actually supposed to justify.

It's like you have contentions A, B, C, D and E, and then you weakly justify "A", and so conclude that the rest can just go along for the ride.

What if someone produced arguments for B, C, D and E? I don't see how an argument can be described as flawed because it doesn't address subsequent contentions...

I mean, I don't know if the argument itself is flawed, (when considered on its own terms) but it seems to me what you're really saying is that the First Cause Argument can not be used to explain the entirety of a Religious belief system... but I don't see how that is a weakness in the argument itself.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What if someone produced arguments for B, C, D and E? I don't see how an argument can be described as flawed because it doesn't address subsequent contentions...

I mean, I don't know if the argument itself is flawed, (when considered on its own terms) but it seems to me what you're really saying is that the First Cause Argument can not be used to explain the entirety of a Religious belief system... but I don't see how that is a weakness in the argument itself.

Firstly, the first cause argument can't really be used to explain any of a religious belief system, because it ignores the obvious double standard that the deity itself is mysteriously exempt from the very argument that supposedly justifies its existence.

Secondly, in the vast majority of instances where a religious apologist is questioned to justify his/her religion, the first cause argument is usually the sole response, because you really can't justify the specific and irrelevant details, that more closely resemble stories than any sort of science.

I mean, how do you "prove" God created the world in 6 days? Why not 8? Why not 14? Why not 2? Why not 0.000000000001?

Originally posted by Master Han
Firstly, the first cause argument can't really be used to explain any of a religious belief system, because it ignores the obvious double standard that the deity itself is mysteriously exempt from the very argument that supposedly justifies its existence.

Secondly, in the vast majority of instances where a religious apologist is questioned to justify his/her religion, the first cause argument is usually the sole response, because you really can't justify the specific and irrelevant details, that more closely resemble stories than any sort of science.

I mean, how do you "prove" God created the world in 6 days? Why not 8? Why not 14? Why not 2? Why not 0.000000000001?

I follow you now!

I agree with the general gist of OP's logic. None of it is anything revolutionary; these rebuttals have existed for at least decades, and sometimes centuries. But it's a cogent and thorough rebuttal to the theistic premise used by some.

It's also similar to the finely-tuned universe justification for God. Link below if you're unfamiliar with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Many of the same rebuttals can apply, because even proving a finely-tuned universe (a dubious proposition to begin with) does nothing to prove the claims of any specific religion. At best, it suggests "something" beyond what we currently understand. The leap in logic from "something" to "Christian God and all that that implies" is quite profound.

That said, these rebuttals do nothing to stop the argument's use. Because we're usually dealing with those whose approach to religion isn't empirical, it's emotional. They look at the universe and can't imagine that God doesn't exist. At that point, they're convinced on an intrinsic level, and whatever philosophical justifications are used hardly matters.

I like the Cosmological natural selection (fecund universes)