There's no reason why God should be the first cause.

This argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.

This argument is an objection to God is the first cause of the universe.

Keywords: Cosmological argument, First cause, God

Summary

At best, the first cause argument would be tantamount to saying that there is, beneath phenomena, a Substance that sustains them. But how can we attribute to this Substance qualities such as intelligence, goodness, or other traditional attributes of God?

Quotes

“Incidentally, even if we were to agree with Leibniz and the principle of reason, this would only prove the existence of a necessary being. But what proof do we have that this being is God, by which I mean a Spirit, a Subject, a Person (or three)? It could just as easily be Anaximander's "apeiron" (the infinite, the indeterminate), Heraclitus' ever-changing fire (becoming), Parmenides' impersonal Being, Lao-tseu's equally impersonal Tao.... It could be Spinoza's Substance, which is absolutely necessary, the cause of itself and of everything, eternal and infinite, but immanent (its effects are in itself) and devoid, as I said in connection with ontological proof, of all anthropomorphic features: it is without consciousness, without will, without love. Spinoza calls it "God", of course, but it's not a good God: it's only Nature (this is what we call Spinozist pantheism: "Deus sive Natura", God that is Nature), which is not a subject and pursues no goal. What's the point of praying to it, since it doesn't listen to us? How can we obey her, when she asks nothing of us? Why trust her, when she doesn't care about us? And what's left of faith? Leibniz made no mistake. This kind of pantheism is closer to atheism than to religion.”

André Comte-Sponville, The spirit of atheism, Albin Michel, 2006.

Template:Citation

References

Justifications

Objections

The first cause is a necessary being
The first cause cannot be material
The first cause cannot be an abstraction
The first cause has consciousness

Parent debate