If causation is a mechanic by which all things work there has to be a first cause that is itself causeless and free from causation itself.

Hume laughs at this but for a scientific person it can be problematic. Refuting causation refutes a scientific and knowable universe..

Care to explain why? The argument is obviously valid though some of the premises are debatable.



They have attempted to show God to be the cause of everything, from which other arguments can be made to attempt to elucidate his nature.

e/ yes the argument's soundness is debatable, though it is valid.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 8 2017 01:32pm

No it's not. That the only possible cause is god is ridiculous.

Idgaf about it's internal consistency. That is only useful as an academic exercise. It has no place in discussing or describing reality.

This post was edited by Scaly on Jan 8 2017 03:22pm

no there doesn't, not all of us are uncomfortable with infinite regress

Regression to what?

Regress*

To another cause.

I'm guessing you're just confusing "valid" with "sound" which is no big deal, I just mixed them up myself a little while ago, just for future reference valid means the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Sound means the conclusion logically follows from the premises and the premises are all true (which then implies that the conclusion is true).

Determining the internal consistency/validity of an argument is hardly just an academic exercise, it is the very foundation of all rational thought.

With that said, what exactly is the issue, specifically, with the argument as it is actually stated in your view?



Look at what he said more closely. He said "if causation is a mechanic by which all things work". The universe (multiverse) is a thing and if the (multi-)universe itself is eternal then it had no cause, meaning that causation is not a mechanic by which all things work.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 8 2017 08:49pm

I have specified that several times already.

The only time I saw you clearly specify anything was in the post where you argued against a bastardization of the argument.

I reject it. It can be turtles all the way down. Still irrelevant however. That thing doesn't have to be god unless you give the frst cause the name 'god'. In which case I can say anything is god. My teacup is god therefore god exists.