12-29-2005, 08:03 PM
wakim,Dec 29 2005, 10:04 AM Wrote:If effects necessarily have causes, then it wouldn't it appear that positing a first cause is not arbitrary, but quite the opposite, necessary?
[right][snapback]98230[/snapback][/right]
Well, if you're willing to shelve the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there's nothing preventing the universe from being an unbroken, infinite set of causes and effects. Since the 2nd law is statistical anyway, there is no imperviously logical reason this is not the case. A first cause is not necessary.
If you'd like to believe in a first cause, that's fine. However, there are two problems:
1) It contradicts the argument that all things are caused, because they can't be, if something wasn't.
2) You would have to demonstrate this entity, along with its uncaused nature, in order for it to be more than just a philosophical musing.
So, as I said before, any such deity is completely arbitrary. You'd be saying that "everything has a cause except this thing which must not have a cause." Aside from being uncaused, and having somehow caused something else, there is no other necessary property of this entity. It could be the universe itself.
-Jester