Is Atheism a Rational Stance?

[Griffin]

Even, by your own admission, your own.

[DSenette]

hell let's even just clarify further since this whole topic is actually about what is/isn't rational and not what does/doesn't exist

RE: "first cause" as a general concept:

it is irrational to state "every event that i've seen has a cause, ergo the universe must have a first cause". this is irrational because we know that there are things that DO NOT have causes. so you cannot use the fact that SOME (hell even if it's MOST or even if it's N-1 things) things have causes to state that any other thing must have a first cause. you can only use that evidence to state that some things might have first causes and you can only be assured that the things that you have observed have first causes have first causes.


it is irrational to state "some things don't have causes, ergo the univers doesn't have a first cause". this is irrational because we know of things that DO have first causes. so you can't use the fact taht some things don't have causes to state that any other thing MUST not have first causes. you can only use that evidence to state that some things might not have first causes, and you can only be assured that the things that you have observed to not have causes don't have first causes.

it is ALWAYS irrational to equate "first cause" of any kind, with ANY definition of God (with a big G) and with all but the most permissive (and thus, functionally useless) definitions of god (little g), because it is wholely irrational to assign intent, sapience, will, consciousness, etc... to any possible "first cause" that actually has testable, measurable evidence.

[gmalivuk]

this is irrational because we know of things that DO have first causes.

Name one.

[krogoth]

this is irrational because we know of things that DO have first causes.

Name one.

Hawking radiation? I don't know if there is a proper noun for the effect before this.

[gmalivuk]

I would think the presence of highly curved spacetime would be a cause of Hawking radiation.

[krogoth]

I was refering to the effect of the particals poping into existance in the first place. Vacuum fluctuations appear to be the cause of this, but I aways assumed the "popping into existance" of the paticals was random/had no cause. It seems now I was wrong(though I don't understand why exactly as the wiki pages get quite complex)

[Patient131071]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but surely if a cause is a reason why something happened, the phenomena that you have described are 'caused'/occur because the universe exists, and operates under the parameters it operates under, ie the laws of physics, of which, I might add, I rather doubt we have a perfect understanding. Therefore, everything in the universe has a cause, apart perhaps from the universe itself-which would make a certain amount of sense given the rule that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only moved around or converted to something else.

[gmalivuk]

I was refering to the effect of the particals poping into existance in the first place. Vacuum fluctuations appear to be the cause of this, but I aways assumed the "popping into existance" of the paticals was random/had no cause. It seems now I was wrong(though I don't understand why exactly as the wiki pages get quite complex)

Perhaps vacuum fluctuations are themselves uncaused, but that still doesn't make them "the first" cause of any other events. And my initial denial was only that we knew of anything with a first cause.

[krogoth]

I didn't mean to suggest it was the "first cause", I just wanted to show there are things that may be uncaused.

[DSenette]

this is irrational because we know of things that DO have first causes.

Name one.

i was personally operating under the same concepts as those above me (i.e. radioactive decay) and taking their understanding of the phenomenon as a higher level of authority on the subject. if those things DO in fact have a cause, then that entire clause (that you didn't quote) in the possibilities argument gets negated because then we're only left with the possibility that EVERYTHING has a cause.

[Technical Ben]

Or that "the things so far observed have causes". Who is arguing everything does?

PS, I suppose it's best not to argue with points you don't necessarily agree with or understand yourself.

[gmalivuk]

i was personally operating under the same concepts as those above me (i.e. radioactive decay) and taking their understanding of the phenomenon as a higher level of authority on the subject. if those things DO in fact have a cause, then that entire clause (that you didn't quote) in the possibilities argument gets negated because then we're only left with the possibility that EVERYTHING has a cause.

I never denied the possibility that some things are uncaused. I only denied that anything we've observed has a first cause. Like I said in my last post.

Or that "the things so far observed have causes". Who is arguing everything does?

Everyone trying to argue that there must be a first cause to the universe.

[DSenette]

i was personally operating under the same concepts as those above me (i.e. radioactive decay) and taking their understanding of the phenomenon as a higher level of authority on the subject. if those things DO in fact have a cause, then that entire clause (that you didn't quote) in the possibilities argument gets negated because then we're only left with the possibility that EVERYTHING has a cause.

I never denied the possibility that some things are uncaused. I only denied that anything we've observed has a first cause. Like I said in my last post.

Or that "the things so far observed have causes". Who is arguing everything does?

Everyone trying to argue that there must be a first cause to the universe.

reading fail. i thought you were pointing out the things that don't have causes.

any actions i specifically take that didn't happen before i did them.....like typing this post has a cause that could be considered a first cause....at least as far as my understanding of causality is concerned. i'm sure you could attempt to work back from that action to the big bang to assume that the big bang (assuming there was nothing before the big bang...which, if that's where time came from, then necessity dictates that anything that we would call "before the big bang" can't really be before anything since "before" requires time) but that seems like an exercise taht would result in the biggest headache of your life.

[Technical Ben]

But a first cause does not rule out additional independent causes in the future? Does it?

I'm a bit lost on your examples DSenette. Your able to cause actions independently of the universe?

[DSenette]

But a first cause does not rule out additional independent causes in the future? Does it?

I'm a bit lost on your examples DSenette. Your able to cause actions independently of the universe?

depends on how you look at it i guess....which is why i said both: "as far as my understanding of causality is concerned" AND "you could probably work that cause all the way back to wherever if you want to".....but the whole concept of causality (again as far as i understand it) comes from our ability to observe events that trigger other events.

i can't say whether anything rules out other independent causes in the future, of other events. but i don't think any single event can have a cause in the past and the future can it? like if you accept something as being a cause for an item NOW, how could that item again be caused later? even if it's the same TYPE of event in the future, it's a different event then, so even if it has the same TYPE of cause, it's a different cause. or am i not reading you correctly?


unless it's circular in which case, are there two causes? or is the second one the first one caught up again in the loop?

i'm not claiming to be able to do anything independent of the universe, i'm inside of it so it's impossible to do anything independent of the universe. but is that question basically stating that any event that occurs inside of the universe, ultimately must have the universe as it's first cause? if so, then.....sure, that's fine. you can take any cause that happened after the universe came into existence (even if the universe is infinite) and apply "universe" as first cause for that i guess. but i wasn't arguing against that. or first causes, or no first causes, or thousands of first causes. i'm arguing against the rationality of a sentient first cause.

[gmalivuk]

any actions i specifically take that didn't happen before i did them.....like typing this post has a cause that could be considered a first cause....at least as far as my understanding of causality is concerned.

It's only the first cause if it's a cause *and* there is no other cause that happened before it. I argue that you cannot to point to anything with a first cause without begging the question about whether the beginning of the universe was caused by something uncaused.

[Technical Ben]

Thanks. A first cause is not necessarily a cause of "everything" that follows it. Like me making a piece of paper in no way influences what is written on the paper. However, you'd still need someone to make the paper in the first place. Unless we observe paper to be eternal right?

Even the arguments about "eternal universes" are fine, but what about when compared to the observable evidence?

[LaserGuy]

any actions i specifically take that didn't happen before i did them.....like typing this post has a cause that could be considered a first cause....at least as far as my understanding of causality is concerned.

It's only the first cause if it's a cause *and* there is no other cause that happened before it. I argue that you cannot to point to anything with a first cause without begging the question about whether the beginning of the universe was caused by something uncaused.

Wouldn't any event that is both uncaused, and causes something to happen, be, rather by definition, a first cause? Not necessarily the first cause, but a first cause of any events that directly follow from that uncaused event?

[gmalivuk]

A first cause is not necessarily a cause of "everything" that follows it.

I know. I'm just saying that event A cannot be the first cause of event B if event B was *also* caused by anything that happened prior to A. And I am furthermore asserting that on this account we have never observed any first cause.

[Griffin]

I think the argument here revolves, at least in part, around how incredibly stupid the term "first cause" is. It's certainly never been defined, not in any reasonable way, in this thread.

And I'm not really sure why its meaningful.

But the closest we've gotten to a "first cause" definition, is something that is, in itself, uncaused.

In which case:

event A cannot be the first cause of event B if event B was *also* caused by anything that happened prior to A.

Would be inaccurate at best, since first causes aren't "of" things, they simply "are" things. In which case a causation chain could, in fact, have multiple first causes that happen at different times.

That definition IS pretty stupid, but its the one we've been working under up until now.

[Technical Ben]

Ok. Thanks gmalivuk. It's annoying to have to reduce things down to logic statements, but if it gets the point across, it helps. Is that considered a rational and reasonable way to build on ones beliefs? I hope it does.

So does it follow that whatever we observe, within the bounds of confidence, we can assume it will have a "cause" (that is something previous to it)? When you say "nothing observed is a first cause", implies they are causes or that they are only caused?

Sorry if you think someone else's ideas are stupid Griffin. But I was just using the term "first cause" as a generic logical representation of the phrase "Thing that has always existed (thus needs no cause of it's self). This thing is also the first to act/change/effect anything". This meets many, though not all, concepts of a god in types of theism. That is, an eternally existing God (or god) whom was the first to act and cause (through whichever mechanism required) the universe (universe = "everything else" not "everything"!).

[Griffin]

This meets many, though not all, concepts of a god in types of theism. That is, an eternally existing God (or god) whom was the first to act and cause (through whichever mechanism required) the universe (universe = "everything else" not "everything"!).

This meets a few of the requirements for gods in a couple different types of theism.


And I thought the term was stupid, not the idea. The idea is still quite irrational, as explained in my last post on the subject, but it really isn't stupid. Just the vague and poorly defined "first cause" term is stupid to describe your definition there. And wasn't really what you were arguing for with most of your posts. So it was a problem with presentation and rhetoric, on that front.

[gmalivuk]

It's certainly never been defined, not in any reasonable way, in this thread.

I defined it in a way closely in keeping with how it's actually been used in philosophical discussions, back to Aristotle. If you disagree, feel free to use a different definition in your posts, so long as you clarify what you're talking about.

It's annoying to have to reduce things down to logic statements

It's even more annoying to try and have arguments or discussions when not only are the different people working from different definitions, but they're also unwilling to break it down and bother explaining exactly what definitions they're using.

This meets many, though not all, concepts of a god in types of theism.

No, it only meets the concept of a god in the simplest forms of deism. But if your religion says God is/was sentient, for example, that goes way beyond merely being the first cause of the universe. If your religion says God has acted (or is even capable in principle of acting) to affect the universe since creation, that goes way beyond merely being the first cause of the universe.

[Griffin]

And then there are the religions that DON'T have their god(s) as the first cause.

I defined it in a way closely in keeping with how it's actually been used in philosophical discussions, back to Aristotle. If you disagree, feel free to use a different definition in your posts, so long as you clarify what you're talking about.

Technical Ben was the one to bring it up, and he was (originally) defining it as a thing that caused other things, and perhaps had some other thing specifically somewhere in the causal chain spawned by it (usually, the Universe) but had no cause itself. He's been adding attributes pretty regularly since then, of course.

Your definition is fine, I don't have a problem with it, just want to be clear on what definition we're actually using moving forward. Just consider me confused about what we're actually discussing and wanting clarification.

[gmalivuk]

Which is why I clarified what I meant by the phrase "first cause". Ben clearly has other ideas, and furthermore finds it "annoying" to have to actually explain what those ideas are, which is one of the reasons it's so frustrating to try and have a productive discussion with him.

[Griffin]

When you say "nothing observed is a first cause", implies they are causes or that they are only caused?

Actually, evidence points to the fact that almost nothing ever happens because of a "single" cause - there's evidence, against your "first cause", by your own standards of evidence, twofold - One, it requires having stuff that's uncaused. We've not observed this. Two, it requires other stuff having a single cause. We've not really observed this either.

Again, you are quite literally believing in a "First Cause" simply because you want to. It's fine, it's alright, but you should really either accept that its irrational or provide the rationale that led you to this conclusion (instead of the poor attempts at rationalization you've used so far to justify that conclusion after the fact).

[Technical Ben]

Sorry gmalivuk. I did not mean it was annoying to have to give definitions, but to have to give mathematical examples of every concept. For instance having to define "first"?

Is a first cause part of other Theisms though? It may not be the only part, but is it a valid part? A first cause on it's own may only be Deism, but does that rule it out from being included in other beliefs?
If we cannot find any part of Theism that agrees, I may also argue we can find no part of Atheism that agrees. In which case the question of the thread is totally redundant as we don't have a definition of what Theism or Atheism is.

Was I unclear when I said I accepted the term of first cause as being descriptive of a God, though not in it's entirety?

Thanks for the example of Aristotle. I have not read of his arguments. So I was just trying to defend what reasons I saw for there to be a first cause. If I fail at giving text book definitions and dictionary spelling, then I'll happily go back and correct them. However I am not a dictionary.

PS, sorry Griffin I still see your statement as contradictory. "We've not observed this [uncaused stuff]. We've really not observed [things having a single cause] either". I don't mind what type of cause it is (single or multiple) but you cannot have both "no observation of uncaused" and "no observation of cause". Can you? PS, my rational was given before. I see a son, I know he needs a father. If I see a mechanism in motion, I know it needs something to put that motion there. Replace "motion" or "son" with anything else we see evidence of requiring a previous or active state. So, I see the universe as requiring something to bring it to the point it is at now.

[Griffin]

Not all theisms believe in a first cause, no.

All Judaism-based religions do, sure, and many others, but certainly not all do. Hinduism is pretty popular and has no first cause built in. Many traditional and local religions, despite having since been absorbed into the Judaics, had neither for their god or gods either.

But moving on:

PS, sorry Griffin I still see your statement as contradictory. "We've not observed this [uncaused stuff]. We've really not observed [things having a single cause] either".

There's nothing contradictory about those statements.

I don't mind what type of cause it is (single or multiple) but you cannot have both "no observation of uncaused" and "no observation of cause". Can you?

Then its good that I didn't say anything like that, isn't it?
a != 0
a != 1
There is no contradiction in holding both those views.

I see a son, I know he needs a father.

Funny, that. If I see a son, I generally assume it had a father AND a mother. And I assume they had parents as well.
While you not only state there was ONLY a father, you go on to state that judging from your experience, HE must have lived forever and couldn't possible have had any parents of his own.
(See if you can spot the point where rationality veers off the rails and over a cliff in that chain of thought)

If I see a mechanism in motion, I know it needs something to put that motion there.

"put". Tell me, what "put" the cockroach in my house that was running about the other day?

Replace "motion" or "son" with anything else we see evidence of requiring a previous or active state. So, I see the universe as requiring something to bring it to the point it is at now.

Right, and you're good up until there. It's not irrational to believe the universe is caused. It might not be right - we really don't know - but it's not irrational.

What's irrational is all of the ADDITIONAL stuff you pile on top of that, and you haven't provided justification for that yet. All of your evidence has only been towards the universe being caused. You haven't given a rational explanation for the rest.
For:
The belief that there was only one cause
The belief that the source for this cause was itself uncaused
The belief that this source cause created the universe (meaning he did it on purpose. We don't say mountains create rivers after all)
The belief that this source shares any more than a single property with the major religions of the world, or that the single property alone is enough to call it "God"

And a couple others too, but those are the ones you need to justify at this point.

[gmalivuk]

Is a first cause part of other Theisms though? It may not be the only part, but is it a valid part? A first cause on it's own may only be Deism, but does that rule it out from being included in other beliefs?

No, of course not. Please read posts fully before you respond. *Many* (but definitely not all) religions involve the idea of "first cause", but of those that do, all but deism add all kinds of other things that are completely independent of being an uncaused cause, and therefore aren't rational additions even if we grant a first cause for the sake of argument.

My point is that, even if you can somehow establish the necessity of a "first cause", or can agree with another person that there is/was such a thing, this does not get you what most people call "god", unless they are talking about deism.

"We've not observed this [uncaused stuff]. We've really not observed [things having a single cause] either". I don't mind what type of cause it is (single or multiple) but you cannot have both "no observation of uncaused" and "no observation of cause".

But that's not what "no single cause" means. You can't ignore the word "single", as it was put there for a reason. The claim was that we've never observed anything with no cause, and we've also never observed anything with single cause. This implies that everything we've observed has had at least two causes.

No contradiction whatsoever.

[Griffin]

And I believe that even Deism requires intentional creation in most variants, rather than simple causation.

[gmalivuk]

And I believe that even Deism requires intentional creation in most variants, rather than simple causation.

Yeah, which is why I described it as only the simplest form(s) of deism that you could get from first cause alone. Deists, afaik, usually also believe in a sentient god who intentionally caused the universe, both claims of which would require additional support independent from positing a first cause.

[Technical Ben]

Thanks Gmalivuk and Griffin. If we are to distinguish Theism in this thread, can I do so too? I would agree that not all theism is correct, hence why I only looked to one part of it. Would it be ok to comment only on the religions that look to a "creator" God? Or perhaps a biblical God? Atheists get to comment on the scientific writings, can I comment on the Religious writings I'm familiar with?

Is it not for simplicities sake that I refereed to everything before the universe as a single step? There could be any amount of steps, but I cannot count those, so I just class them under a single name. IE "A" can be any combination of variables added together that equal "A". Such as "C+D=A".

Griffin, I thought the argument was not about a numerical value but about a logic statement of true/false? I thought we had caused systems or uncaused systems. Do we now have a third?

I saw no reason to justify things not covered in the discussion. The rational stance is progressive right? You need a starting point, then move on from there. Can you consider all points simultaneously? Or just the part that is relevant? Is there a reason to move onto any other subject, if the first part is considered irrational? Does rational thought need a starting point? Then how can we say "there is no such thing as a first or starting point!"?

For clarification Griffin. I can cover those 4 things you listed if you like. But it would make this post too long. Would you like me to do that next?

[Griffin]

Okay, let's see...

Thanks Gmalivuk and Griffin. If we are to distinguish Theism in this thread, can I do so too? I would agree that not all theism is correct, hence why I only looked to one part of it. Would it be ok to comment only on the religions that look to a "creator" God? Or perhaps a biblical God? Atheists get to comment on the scientific writings, can I comment on the Religious writings I'm familiar with?

If you want to argue for only one specific type of theism, that's perfectly fine. No one had a problem with this bit when we thought that was what you were doing. You, recall, were the one who then tried to state that this was god as most people understood it, in an attempt to argue for relevancy. Thats simply not true. If you want to go back to simply argue for a non-involved creator god (if only as a starting point), that's fine, but you'll have to accept for the time that there's practically no one in the world who would find that a sufficient definition of god. That's okay, you don't need them - if you're seeking rationality, even if your final conclusion is god, it's probably not going to be the god most people worship because most people don't give a shit about rationality.

Again, we only had problems when you stated something conclusively false - i.e. that most people would find "first cause" to be sufficient, property-wise, for "god".

Is it not for simplicities sake that I refereed to everything before the universe as a single step? There could be any amount of steps, but I cannot count those, so I just class them under a single name. IE "A" can be any combination of variables added together that equal "A". Such as "C+D=A".

That's still only a single step, multiple causes but one step, so you need to keep tighter track of your language unless you actually that somehow makes multiples steps. Still, I doubt you mean to imply several completely unrelated, lets say, beings are somehow, collectively, a singular god? Unless you think this is the case? Maybe it is. Clarification is requested.

Griffin, I thought the argument was not about a numerical value but about a logic statement of true/false? I thought we had caused systems or uncaused systems. Do we now have a third?

No, that one at least was about a numerical value. Your statement has both logical (binary) components and numerical components. You need to justify it on both fronts for it to be rational. You need to explain why something is, and then why it isn't one of the many things it could be. You argument was that the number of causes of the universe was "not zero", but you had an implicit assumption that the number of direct causes of the universe was equal to one if your argument was correct. I wanted to bring that assumption into the light, because it was unfounded.

I saw no reason to justify things not covered in the discussion. The rational stance is progressive right? You need a starting point, then move on from there. Can you consider all points simultaneously? Or just the part that is relevant? Is there a reason to move onto any other subject, if the first part is considered irrational? Does rational thought need a starting point? Then how can we say "there is no such thing as a first or starting point!"?

Ok. Sure. Usually, you have multiple starting points. No. Well, usually you take turns looking at the points. No? You already asked this on... well, stated, I guess. Usually it requires multiple. No one said there weren't starting points. Starting points aren't first causes, though, no more than the starting line of a race is the first cause of a person running - they are just the place where we start keeping track. We can even declare a "cause" as first, but again, its the same - it's not really the first in any meaningful way so much as it is an expression of our ability to categorize.

For clarification Griffin. I can cover those 4 things you listed if you like. But it would make this post too long. Would you like me to do that next?

Do these two first:
The belief that there was only one cause
The belief that the source for this cause was itself uncaused (without using logic that would invalidate the need for the universe to be caused)

[Technical Ben]

Griffin, for you I will do my best to describe the reasoning I have for my belief. The statement I see as fitting the evidence is as follows:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This gives only a couple of definitions. It does not add anything else at this point, does it? This is the beginning of a theory or description, so how can we jump anywhere else at this point? It is only stating the variables, names or concepts that we wish to introduce, right? What is this one statement saying? We don't need to introduce all history and wars fought do we? Can we just consider the statement?

Is it not just saying "before now (the beginning) God created the heaven and earth (the things observed now)"?

Then it also says

"Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God."

So we have a before state that is eternal, then a change that brought us to the universe we have now. Does evidence support this?

I see this as logically fitting my observations of evidence. So in answer to your 2 questions I conclude.
1) I do not require causes for things that are eternal. I see the universe is progressive, not eternal. So the universe would require a cause which at some point would be eternal. This fits the observed evidence. The universe has an "age" and we can look "back" to a previous "time". So I need to look for something other than the observed universe as it's starting point.
2) I only attribute cause to things I observe as not being eternal. So the "eternal" need not apply for causation here. There is no requirement anywhere in these statements for this. However there is a requirement for the thing that is not eternal. That is the other things we call collectively the "universe".

The only possible statement is "a non-eternal thing came from an eternal thing". Is there a contradiction in that statement?
Thanks.

[LaserGuy]

Griffin, for you I will do my best to describe the reasoning I have for my belief. The statement I see as fitting the evidence is as follows:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What caused God to create the Universe?

[Griffin]

No contradiction, no. Though you do have some leaps in reasoning already:
You are presupposing the eternal nature of the cause of the universe.
You are presupposing that eternal things, even those that exist outside time, need not be and, if I'm reading you correctly, cannot be caused. I really doubt you have any experiences to justify this - I doubt anyone does. It's like someone using the alien pyramid on the dark side of mars (before telescopes were invented) as the basis for an argument - even if you're correct, there's literally no way for you to be so other than by sheer chance.
You seem to be implying that it is impossible for an eternal being to make progress at anything, else he could not be eternal. That's really weird! And seemingly unjustified!

So let me try to trim it down and remove all those unneeded assumptions, and ground this in some sort of reasonable evidence. Well, okay, there's not much evidence here at all beyond "we observe causality", but work with me.

Assumptions: Causality holds within the bounds of the Universe, in accordance with observations. (Fairly Solid)
Assumption: The Universe is subject to its own laws, causality included. (A bit wobbly)
Thus: The Universe must have a cause, to follow the rule of causality.
Assumption: The rules of the universe, such as causality, only hold within the confines of the universe. (Fairly Solid)
Assumption: There exists an "outside" of the universe. (A bit wobbly)
Thus: A universal cause must have an impetus from outside the universe, since the universe does not exist. This impetus, this force, is thus not confined by the rules that govern the universe, and does not need to obey causality. This impetus can thus be uncaused.
Assumption: Eternal has some meaning outside the universe. (Very shakey)
Thus: It is possible for this Impetus to be eternal.

Rationally, logically, empirically, that's about as far as we can get. I've put what evidence, as I know it, indicates as to the strength of each assumption made. Note that we can't SAY this impetus is eternal - even the assumption that eternal applies to extra-universal objects is shakey ground, since eternal is bound in time, and we wouldn't have any of it. In fact, we can't say anything reliable whatsoever about this impetus at all, since it doesn't operate under any known laws - that's the way it gets even a chance at being eternal, according to the previous assumptions, but it also allows for a lot of wackier stuff. For example: It could cause itself. It could cause itself many times, and exist simultaneously. Wacky stuff. We literally have no clue.

So the question is: If I give you "Some impetus, which acted in such a way so as to result in our universe, exists outside the confines our universal rules and thus remains unconstrained by them.", will you take that? Is that enough for you at this step, or do you feel the need to add something?

I've done the best I can with what you offered and tried to shore it up with some of my own stuff, but unless you add a bit more in I can work with that's the strongest statement I'm going to be able to arrive at rationally. Is that enough for us to move on?

[Technical Ben]

Thank you Griffin, I think I managed to get the main points across. Sorry if I was not clear previously.
As mentioned before, I am not assuming any rules apply, or that the thing before the universe is eternal or bound by time. "Eternal" means a thing not effected by time, right? This theory (if we must call it that) from the bible, is the best fit to the evidence I have yet been given. As you said, we cannot assume it is effected by time if it existed before time, so is Eternal the best description of this?

If we assume the opposite, then it does not fit the evidence. For example, can we assume the cause of the universe was bound by time?

Well, as to the concept of "time", we can throw it out the window if you like. It's just a measurement. It's a measurement between 2 points in our data. As we cannot take measurements of the things outside the universe they are to our perspective, "timeless". They do not change, because we cannot measure any changes in them. Especially so for instances we could consider before the universe. But if we can measure them at the present, then we could conclude time presently exists. However it still would not exist prior to the universe (at least from our perspective). So how can we conclude the universal grand mover or first cause is bound by time?

So I just have 2 measurements. Before the universe, and after the universe. A then B. Note that "time" is not required in a "A then B" statement. Just a difference or separation between A and B. Is that right? Perhaps "<A then B"? (What is the logic symbol for everything preceding?)

[krogoth]

I think it might be better to say something like
Universe = U
and
outside the universe = !U
But I don't really see what we can do with this.

[Griffin]

I see - you're using the Metaphysics definition footnote rather than any of the standard definitions of Eternal. That's fine, I guess.

The problem is, we don't know if there's anything like time outside the universe. Obviously change in an eternal situation is possible though, because by your own argument, that which exists outside time is eternal, and yet the Universe had a beginning - it represented a change in the state of anything/everything that is not the universe.

If our impetus caused the universe, it must be able to change - from a thing that has not caused the universe to a thing that has caused the universe, or else the word "cause" is meaningless. You're not talking about cause any longer, you're simply talking about mutual eternal existence.

You say the eternal cannot change, and is not bound by cause and effect, or by time - fine.

How does something like that cause a universe?

Regardless, your current explanation leads us to:
The Impetus is causing the universe to be created at every "moment", and is never and can never be anything except that which is creating the universe.

Is this reasonable?

[qetzal]

Is a first cause part of other Theisms though? It may not be the only part, but is it a valid part? A first cause on it's own may only be Deism, but does that rule it out from being included in other beliefs?
If we cannot find any part of Theism that agrees, I may also argue we can find no part of Atheism that agrees. In which case the question of the thread is totally redundant as we don't have a definition of what Theism or Atheism is.

When you ask whether theism or atheism agree, do you mean whether they agree with a first cause? As already noted, it depends. Theism typically does hold that a god was/is the first cause. But it's quite possible to believe in a god without believing in a first cause. And as I tried to explain earlier, atheism per se doesn't take any particular position on whether there was a first cause. Atheism only holds that IF there was a first cause, it wasn't a god.

And how do you get the idea that any of that means we don't have a definition for either theism or atheism? We have definitions for both; they're just not absolutely dependent on a first cause.