Bertrand Russell (Stalinist Philosopher)

[Warrior_Monk]

I split this post into it’s own thread from the “Quick! Which book should I read?” thread. I felt that it strayed from the purpose of the thread and perhaps deserved it’s own thread. - Skeptic

Bertrand Russell (Stalinist Philosopher)

"The First Cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easy to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there is a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested on the tortoise; and when they said , “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument really is no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause."

Let us critique this outmoded Twentieth Century Pseudo-Nihilist hypocrisy and Marxist Atheism one erroneous conclusion at a time, shall we mein Kamarades?

Perhaps the simplest and easy to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.)

Russell should quit now while he is ahead.

That argument, I suppose, does not carry much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be.

Cause is “not quite what it used to be”? Cause is the same Cause that it was at the dawn of time and will be the same Cause a billion squared years from now. Cause is a necessary and universal principle which is a priori and all empirical data confirm the existence of this a priori principle. Cause and Effect will exist as immutable principles of the human mind for now and all of Time and Eternity.

The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have.

OK. I’ll take your word for it… Cause has just as much “vitality” now as it ever will have and as it ever has had.

I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause

I didn’t know people can become less wise with age but I suppose anything is possible.

until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.

OK. Fair enough. It cannot be answered. Mill is Agnostic but certainly not an Atheist. To conclude that one should practice Atheism as a result of Mill’s (Kant’s) argument is absurd. In other words - Mill pleads ignorance on the issue – he simply doesn’t know. He is Agnostic. Russell, the Bolshevik, of course takes Mill’s Agnosticism as justification for Atheism.

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.

Everything must have a Cause except for the First Cause which is Uncaused. The First Cause is the First Cause. The First Cause cannot have a Cause because it is the First Cause.

If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God

There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beggining at all.

Fortunately this view has been completely demolished by modern science. We know empirically and mathematically that the world has a Cause. We know that the world was Caused by the birth of the Solar System, that the Solar System was Caused by the Galaxy, that the Galaxy was Caused by the Universe, and that the Universe was Caused by the Big Bang. The Big Bang, as far as we can tell is the First Cause. Therefore Russell’s opinion that the Universe is Uncaused will forever be condemned the trash heap of Twentieth Century immorality, Marxist Atheism, and Pseudo-Nihilist genocide.

The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

This reminds me of Hegel’s one page so-called “refutation” of Kant. Russell refutes Aristotle, indeed every Theist philosopher in history in exactly one page. No wonder Russell will always be considered a second rate thinker.

[Skeptic]

So let the critiqueing begin!

First of all, I am quite put out by the fact that you have referred to Bert as a Stalinist philosopher. Must all those whom are atheists be Stalinists? Secondly, Stalin was not a philosopher and had no philosophical mindset. All he did was forcefully fulfill the philosophy of Lenin. So, truthfully, I’m not quite sure what you are insinuating with the connotation of a Stalinist philosopher.

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.

Everything must have a Cause except for the First Cause which is Uncaused. The First Cause is the First Cause. The First Cause cannot have a Cause because it is the First Cause.

This reminds me of Hegel’s one page so-called “refutation” of Kant. Russell refutes Aristotle, indeed every Theist philosopher in history in exactly one page. No wonder Russell will always be considered a second rate thinker.

Second rate thinker? Hmmm… Please take a look at the line above this where you have so wonderfully demonstrated an “explanation” of the evidence for the theory of First Cause.

Please allow me to give a one paragraph refutation of the First Cause argument. If every percievable Cause is the result of a previous Cause, what might lead a person to believe it is possible for a single Cause to be uncaused? Nothing but imagination. It makes absolutely no sense. It is only reasonable to believe that Causality has remained the same throughout eternity until some piece of evidence points otherwise. Why is it so hard to comprehend that the universe has always been?

May I ask you what your personal beliefs are?

[theoryofexist]

Perhaps man created god the minute that god created man, the first hermenutic circle. Man, even cavemen most likely, always has/had the propensity for imagining that there must exist something greater.

[Logo]

Jesus Christ on his motherfucking cross!

Warrior Monk, please tell me you’re not for real. You are the first person I have ever heard call Bertrand Russell a second-rate thinker. Most professional philosophers consider him one of the 20th century’s greatest minds.

You clearly don’t know the first thing about Russell’s philosphy; his view of causality was influenced by quantum theory, which, if you talk to any physicist, has drastically changed our view of what “cause” means. You are certainly ignorant of Russell’s political views, as well. You might be interested to know that he was EXTREMELY critical of Stalin’s regime, and at one point even advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union (although he later recanted that view and became a proponent of nuclear disarmament). And where in god’s great earth did you get the notion that a certain view of cosmology is tantamount to genocide? Well I know where you pulled it from, and all I have to say is, shove it back up there and show some respect for your intellectual betters–even when you disagree with them.

Can I request that this thread be moved to the rant house? I don’t think this quite qualifies as philosophy.

[Warrior_Monk]

@Skeptic

Please allow me to give a one paragraph refutation of the First Cause argument.

If every percievable Cause is the result of a previous Cause, what might lead a person to believe it is possible for a single Cause to be uncaused?

Because the concept of a First Cause exists and is real.

Nothing but imagination.

Is it just my imagination that all things have a Cause? How come no one, in the history of mankind, has been able to find an Uncaused object? Is it just my imagination that some things have a root Cause? Isn’t Thomas Edison the root Cause of the lightbulb?

It makes absolutely no sense.

Tell that to Aristotle and Einstein and every Cosmologist in the world who believes in the Big Bang. Tell that to the infidel Steven Hawking who can’t even write two sentences without mentioning God.

It is only reasonable to believe that Causality has remained the same throughout eternity until some piece of evidence points otherwise.

Since Cause in an a priori form of our intuition, it is impossible for a posteriori data to refute the existence of Causailty.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that the universe has always been?

It’s not impossible to comprehend. It’s just false. Do you only reject the Big Bang or do you reject all Science and Truth? Would it be impossible to comprehend if the universe was actually a turtle?

May I ask you what your personal beliefs are?

Suffice it to say I agree with the likes of Aristotle and Einstein and I reject Twentieth Century infidels like Russell.

[Chuangtzu]

Monk,

Do you believe your attitude is consistant with that of Morihei Eushiba’s, who’s picture you use?

[Warrior_Monk]

@Chuangtzu

Monk,

Do you believe your attitude is consistant with that of Morihei Eushiba’s, who’s picture you use?

Yes I do. Ueshiba was a religious man and Causality is the basis for Aikido; he was not a Godless Atheist like Russell. Omoto means “Great Source.” It might as well mean First Cause.

omlc.ogi.edu/aikido/talk/osensei … sion1.html

Stay on topic.

[ben]

Great topic and some heated debate, I like it! There’s a lot of different points coming out of this thread but one point i wanted to pick up on in particular:

Since Cause in an a priori form of our intuition, it is impossible for a posteriori data to refute the existence of Causailty.

What do you mean by “Cause is a priori”? Are you talking about the principle of “Every cause/effect/thing has a cause” ? I’m not convinced that this is necessarily a priori knowledge. What sort of analytic or logical reasoning can you give me to show that every cause has a cause. Granted, empiricallly we can say that the evidence is overwhelming but that is obviously a posteriori knowledge.

Because the concept of a First Cause exists and is real.

Surely this is a statement of belief and not a rationally justified truth? I still don’t see how you argue out of Skeptic’s argument:

To the question: What is the more likely explanation for the “cause” of the Universe? The various options are:

1. There is an infinite regress of causes (based on principle of causality)
2. There is a First Cause that has no cause (this directly violates the principle of causality)

I don’t see how you can start off by saying “Everything must have a cause” and then completely ignore that principle when it comes to the “First Cause”. Either you agree with the principle or you don’t.

• ben

[Warrior_Monk]

@ben

Great topic and some heated debate, I like it! There’s a lot of different points coming out of this thread but one point i wanted to pick up on in particular:

Since Cause in an a priori form of our intuition, it is impossible for a posteriori data to refute the existence of Causailty.

What do you mean by “Cause is a priori”? Are you talking about the principle of “Every cause/effect/thing has a cause” ? I’m not convinced that this is necessarily a priori knowledge. What sort of analytic or logical reasoning can you give me to show that every cause has a cause. Granted, empiricallly we can say that the evidence is overwhelming but that is obviously a posteriori knowledge.

If the principle “Everything is Caused except the First Cause” is not a priori, then I don’t know what is! Have you ever read Aristotle’s Metaphysics or Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason? “We are seeking the principles and the causes (aitiai) of the things that are.” – Aristotle

@ben

Because the concept of a First Cause exists and is real.

Surely this is a statement of belief and not a rationally justified truth? I still don’t see how you argue out of Skeptic’s argument:

To the question: What is the more likely explanation for the “cause” of the Universe? The various options are:

1. There is an infinite regress of causes (based on principle of causality)
2. There is a First Cause that has no cause (this directly violates the principle of causality)

I don’t see how you can start off by saying “Everything must have a cause” and then completely ignore that principle when it comes to the “First Cause”. Either you agree with the principle or you don’t.

• ben

The principle from Aristotle is this “Everything must have a Cause except the First Cause which is Uncaused.” After the Principle of Contradiction (Non-Contradiction), this is the most basic and fundamental Metaphysical Truth.

[trix]

monk,

i think you’ve rasied some really good arguements of russel, from a rationalist perspective. the first cause principle is widely used, especially by liebniz and aristotle, as you are awear. the twist from mill’s agnotisim to russel’s justification is a smart move to point out.

the only defeat in your post that i see is that while you are quick to point out the errors of russel, you haven’t established a theory in place. also, the mud-sligging doesn’t help. try to suggest a reason why the first cause needs to exist, because i think, from russel’s paragraph, you have shown that russel cannot proove absolutly that it doesn’t exist (n.b. this doesn’t mean he doesn’t do it elsewhere…)

but i like your style kid. keep it up.

[Kurt_Weber]

@Logo

You are the first person I have ever heard call Bertrand Russell a second-rate thinker.

Then apparently Monk’s the first person you’ve met who knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

Most professional philosophers consider him one of the 20th century’s greatest minds.

Then most professional philosophers obviously DON’T know their asses from a hole in the ground.

(a real response later, but this waste of space really stuck out)

[Logo]

russel cannot proove absolutly that it doesn’t exist

But he’s not trying to. All he has to do is show that there are other possibilities, and the Cosmological Argument fails to prove God’s existence. In the first place, I’m pretty sure he wrote “Why I am Not a Christian” before Big Bang cosmology really caught on (back when Einstein himself believed in a single, eternal universe). But now physicists are advancing ideas like the multiple-universe theory that would at least make possible an infinite sequence of Big Bangs. On that scenario, the uncaused cause is the infinite sequence itself, and I don’t find this incompatible with Russel’s viewpoint.

[Skeptic]

@Warrior Monk

@Skeptic

If every percievable Cause is the result of a previous Cause, what might lead a person to believe it is possible for a single Cause to be uncaused?

Because the concept of a First Cause exists and is real.

[trix]

skeptic,

yes, monk’s dogmatism is not lost on me. neither is logo’s quote:

Jesus Christ on his motherfucking cross!

hey logo, heads up! Wittgenstein coming at you as the best in 20th cent.

logo,

But he’s not trying to. All he has to do is show that there are other possibilities,

yeah, i kinda think russel does. i’m by no means a rationalist, but completly rejecting any possibility of a first cause simply because we can’t prove anything would require a pretty damn good proof. that paragraph was weak. but like i said, maybe it’s better elsewhere, but i’m not going to waste my time going through russel’s cannon of work to investigate, only to look for a weak pragmatic arguement. i find this kind of radical empiricism unfulfilling.

On that scenario, the uncaused cause is the infinite sequence itself, and I don’t find this incompatible with Russel’s viewpoint.

leibniz also poist a similar idea. so do all the rationalists. the uncaused cause is the first substance (god & spinoza) or god (leibniz). note also that leibniz came up with the possible world’s scenario. i don’t think russel, as monk was arguing, is trying to show that there is likely possibility that there is a first cause as there is that there isn’t a first cause, but it seems that russel was trying to show there wasn’t a first cause at all. i’m not convinced that non-existence breeds existence. that takes a bigger arguement than some childhood story. word.

[Skeptic]

Sorry trix. I really wasn’t trying to re-emphasize the poor nature of Monk’s argument. I actually had some content with that post but I lost the entirety of the post with an accidental mouse click. I didn’t realize that I had posted anything actually. But I agree, Logo’s etiquette wasn’t exactly gentlemen-like either, but to each his own.

Just to set the record straight, I wouldn’t consider Russell one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century by any means, but he was somewhat natural in his language and that is what has made him so recognized and well liked.

@trix

i’m by no means a rationalist, but completly rejecting any possibility of a first cause simply because we can’t prove anything would require a pretty damn good proof.

Although it is the lack of proof in the concept of the God entity that should shift our focus, I would disagree that we necessarily need “good proof” to disprove the First Cause theory. I think that the statement “something cannot come from nothing” is enough proof to negate a first cause. Causality must have always existed. Even if we were to imagine that there were some sort of eternal God entity that created the universe, we cannot call it the first cause. The God entity itself would also be a system of causality in itself. In order for the God entity to disperse the magic that started the universe, it would need to be initiated by some internal cause, and that cause by another, and so on and so on. There is never actually a first cause unless we assume a point at which there was nothing.

Is it at all possible for an entirely static entity, to suddenly disperse an action? And are we also supposed to imagine that this God entity remained alone for the first half of eternity with no external activites?

It all seems absurd to me and is a factor that is unneccessary to rationally explain existence. If we had reason to believe that there were some sort of God entity it might work but without such evidence we must try and assume the most natural scenario that pre-existed the Big Bang. My assumptions lead me to the theory that we have an ever-recurring universe that continues to expand and contract. Seems quite reasonable to me. Do we have any reason to believe otherwise?

@Warrior Monk

@Skeptic

If every percievable Cause is the result of a previous Cause, what might lead a person to believe it is possible for a single Cause to be uncaused?

Because the concept of a First Cause exists and is real.

Please work on your defense here. It seems a bit lacking.

@Warrior Monk

@Skeptic

Nothing but imagination.

Is it just my imagination that all things have a Cause? How come no one, in the history of mankind, has been able to find an Uncaused object?

This is actually where we seem to agree but also where you contradict yourself. There are no uncaused objects and that is my point in it’s entirety. This also means that a First Cause is impossible, because you would be insinnuating an uncaused object. Right? or am I missing something? scratches head in a befuddled manner

@Warrior Monk

@Skeptic

It makes absolutely no sense.

Tell that to Aristotle and Einstein and every Cosmologist in the world who believes in the Big Bang. Tell that to the infidel Steven Hawking who can’t even write two sentences without mentioning God.

scratches head again

[Chuangtzu]

@Warrior Monk

@Chuangtzu

Monk,

Do you believe your attitude is consistant with that of Morihei Eushiba’s, who’s picture you use?

Yes I do. Ueshiba was a religious man and Causality is the basis for Aikido; he was not a Godless Atheist like Russell. Omoto means “Great Source.” It might as well mean First Cause.

omlc.ogi.edu/aikido/talk/osensei … sion1.html

Stay on topic.

But you neglect that the “great source” in asian philosophy is not the Prime Cause in Western. The tao - omo to, great tao - is not a source in the same sense that it is in alphabetic occidental linearity. The tao is both nameless and centerless and would hardly qualify as a linear or great causative as God is thusly conceived in the West.

[Magius]

Warrior Monk stated:

Because the concept of a First Cause exists and is real.

Based on what? Don’t just come out and say you are right because you are right, or in this case that something exists because it exists. I thought you read Kant, and if so you should know the issue of applying existence as some kind of an attribute. Caveat: I am not saying that there doesn’t exist a first cause, I am merely asking you for a logical and rational argument.

Warrior Monk stated:

Is it just my imagination that all things have a Cause?

It very well could be, see Hume on his Enquiry concerning human understanding. You will find that we automatically assume causality to be there, but there is a sense in which there really doesn’t need to be causality whatsoever. All I’m saying is that the issue isn’t as clear as “ofcourse there is causality” - we try to be a little more philosophical than that.

Warrior Monk stated:

How come no one, in the history of mankind, has been able to find an Uncaused object?

Actually, there are those who believe they have. Whether or not they are right is up for debate. Aristotle as well as Einstein would say they did find an uncaused cause. Funny how contemporary physics now suggests that the big bang theory isn’t an uncaused cause at all - what’s worse (for theorists like yourself) is that there is a almost no mention of God whatsoever. For some further info, look up String Theory in google.

Warrior Monk stated:

Is it just my imagination that some things have a root Cause? Isn’t Thomas Edison the root Cause of the lightbulb?

That’s just the thing, root causes could be our imagination just as causality may be. Isn’t Thomas Edison’s experiences in life that led him to conceive of the lightbulb the root cause of the lightbulb? Aren’t his experience in life the root cause of other experiences by other people as well as the fundamental forces of nature? and so on and so on.

Warrior Monk stated:

Tell that to Aristotle and Einstein and every Cosmologist in the world who believes in the Big Bang. Tell that to the infidel Steven Hawking who can’t even write two sentences without mentioning God.

You come here imposing your views on us as if you were God and you knew with 100% certainty what is real and what isn’t as though we were the one’s who are so naive. There is a chance you may even be right, but the point remains that you are not acting as Master Ueshiba Morihei would act, nor would a true practicing Aikido master act this way. In martial arts, just as in debate, we use others forces of wonder and curiosity to share with them our knowledge and dual it out together to see who is most likely right. As the true budo is the way of attraction by which we draw people towards us as a complete entity. You are pushing us away with your aggressive and dogmatic assertions while treating us as something other than a complete entity to yourself. I think Chuangtzu had a similar idea in mind when he asked you
if you thought your attitude was consistant with that of Ueshiba Morihei’s…there is no way in which it is Monk.

Warrior Monk stated:

Since Cause in an a priori form of our intuition, it is impossible for a posteriori data to refute the existence of Causailty.

Your argument for something being apriori was “if that isn’t aprior then I don’t know what is” - is this what we are suppose to base our fundamental logic and rationality on? Is this the way we are suppose to argue in order to communicate and understand our world better? You said it, causality is an intuition and how often is intuition wrong? I’m not saying causality is fake, nor am I arguing for its veracity - all I am trying to do is get some kind of logical argument out of you on which we can begin a real discussion.

Warrior Monk stated:

It’s not impossible to comprehend. It’s just false. Do you only reject the Big Bang or do you reject all Science and Truth? Would it be impossible to comprehend if the universe was actually a turtle?

It’s quite possible that the universe has always been, yet you dismiss it as false without providing any evidence and instead ask condescending questions back. How will we come to any kind of agreement on anything if we persist like this?

Warrior Monk stated:

Suffice it to say I agree with the likes of Aristotle and Einstein and I reject Twentieth Century infidels like Russell.

This is inconsistent. First of all the person asked you for your personal beliefs, not the beliefs you have according to others. Furthermore, Aristotle’s notion of God was much different than the notion of God Einstein had. So which parts of Aristotle do you agree with and which parts of Einsteins belief of God do you hold? Remember that Einstein said that he believed in a Spinozian God.

What’s your take?

[Warrior_Monk]

@Gadfly of ILP

Based on what? Don’t just come out and say you are right because you are right, or in this case that something exists because it exists. I thought you read Kant, and if so you should know the issue of applying existence as some kind of an attribute. Caveat: I am not saying that there doesn’t exist a first cause, I am merely asking you for a logical and rational argument.

The logical and rational argument is based upon an agreement with Aristotle’s Metaphysics coupled with the a posteriori data of every serious scientist in the world. This is not my argument nor is it original. It is simply the Absolute Truth.

arcturus.mit.edu/ask/bigbang.html

astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/dark … ading.html

cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education … rimer.html

damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

@Gadfly of ILP

Is it just my imagination that all things have a Cause?

It very well could be, see Hume on his Enquiry concerning human understanding. You will find that we automatically assume causality to be there, but there is a sense in which there really doesn’t need to be causality whatsoever. All I’m saying is that the issue isn’t as clear as “ofcourse there is causality” - we try to be a little more philosophical than that.

David Hume is a Sophist, a Hypocrite, an Imbecile, a Buffoon, a Clown, a Fool, a Liar, an Infidel, and a Degenerate. David Hume is living proof of the existence of Causality and of his own Hypocrisy and Sophistry. If Cause didn’t exist it would be impossible to put one foot in front of their other and it would be impossible for the degenerate Sophist to gamble whilst playing backgammon, let alone put a man on the moon.

Here are the antidotes to Sophistry, I suggest you take them in liberal doses:

@Gadfly of LP

Warrior Monk stated:

How come no one, in the history of mankind, has been able to find an Uncaused object?

Actually, there are those who believe they have. Whether or not they are right is up for debate. Aristotle as well as Einstein would say they did find an uncaused cause. Funny how contemporary physics now suggests that the big bang theory isn’t an uncaused cause at all - what’s worse (for theorists like yourself) is that there is a almost no mention of God whatsoever. For some further info, look up String Theory in google.

For String Theory to exist it is necessary for the First Cause to have Caused it… String Theory makes no claims about God or the First Cause. If anything, String Theory confirms the existence of God.

Warrior Monk stated:

Is it just my imagination that some things have a root Cause? Isn’t Thomas Edison the root Cause of the lightbulb?

That’s just the thing, root causes could be our imagination just as causality may be. Isn’t Thomas Edison’s experiences in life that led him to conceive of the lightbulb the root cause of the lightbulb? Aren’t his experience in life the root cause of other experiences by other people as well as the fundamental forces of nature? and so on and so on.

As Aristotle says a billion times, there are infinite Accidental Causes but only one First Cause.

It’s quite possible that the universe has always been, yet you dismiss it as false without providing any evidence

I refer you to the Big Bang links posted above. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the universe has always existed and is Uncaused. Zero. In fact, all of the evidence that we do have leads us to believe that there was a Big Bang which was Caused by the First Cause – namely God.

Aristotle’s notion of God was much different than the notion of God Einstein had.

I was pointing out their similarities. Both believe in a First Cause. Both are antithetical to Russell the Godless Satanist.

[Logo]

all of the evidence that we do have leads us to believe that there was a Big Bang which was Caused by the First Cause – namely God.

I don’t think Gadfly was suggesting that there wasn’t a big bang. What he was probably referring to was the fact that many scientists question whether the big bang was the beginning of the universe. The bang was an explosion of matter, but where did the matter come from? Surely it existed before the bang. Couldn’t that matter itself have been the uncaused cause? If it had to have a cause, why are you just asserting that that cause had to be God?

Monk, I challenge you to present in clear, logical order your arguments for three of your as-of-yet unsupported claims:

1. The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
2. The First Cause had to be God.
3. Bertrand Russel was a Satinist

(and you might want to add a line or two about why Hume was a Buffoon–perhaps paying special attention to how Kant was misguided in thinking he was a great philosopher)

So cough it up my man–no name-calling, no changing the subject, no repetitive assertions of how you are right and everyone else is wrong. Just the logic, please. Let’s not forget that this is a Philosophy forum.

[Warrior_Monk]

@Logo

The bang was an explosion of matter, but where did the matter come from?

The First Cause. Where else? See Aristotle.

Surely it existed before the bang. Couldn’t that matter itself have been the uncaused cause?

No. Matter has a Cause. The First Cause.

If it had to have a cause, why are you just asserting that that cause had to be God?

As Russell says, God is a synonym for First Cause.

Monk, I challenge you to present in clear, logical order your arguments for three of your as-of-yet unsupported claims:

1. The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.

Even if the Big Bang wasn’t the beginning of the universe, the universe must still have a Cause. The First Cause.

2. The First Cause had to be God.

The definition of God is First Cause (according to Russell).

3. Bertrand Russel was a Satinist

If you do not believe in Good (The God of Creation and Truth) then you must believe in Evil (Satan, The Lord of Destruction and Father of Lies). Neutral is Satanic.

(and you might want to add a line or two about why Hume was a Buffoon–perhaps paying special attention to how Kant was misguided in thinking he was a great philosopher)

And he was a fat gluttonous pig and a drunk and those were his good points. Kant wrote the Critique of Pure Reason in order to expose Hume as the Sophist, Liar, and Hypocrite that he is.