[republicuk]

The common first cause or uncaused cause argument is stated as follows:

"Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God."

Counter-apologetics
Many of the responses to the Unmoved mover argument also apply to this one:

Self-contradiction
One can argue that the conclusion "God is the first cause" contradicts the premise "everything has a cause", and that the first cause argument is therefore self-contradictory.

It can, however, be restated as a reductio ad absurdum, to make the contradiction a desirable feature:

1 Premise: every event has a cause.
2 Premise: there can be no infinite regress.
3 Premise: there exists some event e0.
4 From (1) and (3), it follows that e0 has a cause e1, which in turn has a cause e2, and so on, in an infinite regress.
5 From (2) we know that there can be no infinite regress, which contradicts (4).
6 Therefore, at least one of the premises must be false.

If we reject premise 1, that every event has a cause, then there must be at least one uncaused cause, which can be called "God".

Why call it God?
Even if we accept the argument from first cause, the conclusion is still problematic: the word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random vacuum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be misleading. It also can be noted that if for some reason there did have to be a first cause, we don't know what it was or enough about it to give it attributes other than being the first cause, which would make calling it and assuming it is God an argument from incredulity or the "God of the gaps" idea.

Argument from incredulity
To say that because we currently observe cause and effect relationships occurring in space-time, the universe itself must have had a first cause is assuming something that no one knows. Before the big bang time could not be said to exist at least in the way that we perceive it, and so to make assumptions about the behavior of matter prior to time is pure speculation. Simply because one cannot conceive of something happening without a cause, does not mean that we can assume everything needs a cause. The logic fails as soon as we attempt to precede the Planck time, after which nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect. It is much the same as saying that order and design must mean there was a designer, just because as far as you can tell this is the case with things that humans design. You are saying you cannot fathom a natural process that would explain what you are trying to explain and so you assume that nature must abide by your narrow understanding of order and design. One's narrow understanding of cause and effect based on their current concept of time does not mean that before time was as it is today their narrow views still apply.

Other counterarguments
1 Who created God?
2 Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, in vacuum, out of literally nothing, with no prior cause. This contradicts Aquinas’s premise. (Whether this is a valid counterargument is debatable. The Casimir effect is poorly understood; it is nondeterministic but statistically predictable. If this is a valid counterargument, then you could equally say that the fact that your coin flip turned up heads rather than tails is also a valid counterargument.)
3 Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.
4 If they claim that with an infinite past, we could never get to now, flip the infinity: Does an infinity of seconds not stretch forward into the future, eternally? Starting from an infinite future, can you go a second before that, and a second before that, ad infinitum, and get to now?
5 It is simpler to assume that matter and energy are infinite (as neither can be created or destroyed), than to assume that a god that created them is infinite.
6 This argument is also using the fallacy of composition. Since one (or all, or any number) of parts need a cause inside the universe, and then applying this to the universe as a whole is simply a fallacy.

[nucklepunche]

The first cause always made a lot of sense to me. Ultimately the question of "what created God?" is irrelevant because God exists outside our physical universe, but is the first cause of it. If you look back through the history of the cosmos it all comes down to a central point. Atheists have no explanation for why the matter of the big bang existed in the first place. Maybe it isn't the concept of a God as in any earthly religion but there has never been a doubt as to the existence of some sort of power greater than humans that in some way caused the universe to come about.

[quetzalcoatl]

Argument from Stevie Wonder:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Stevie Wonder is God.

[Americanroyalty]

The first cause always made a lot of sense to me. Ultimately the question of "what created God?" is irrelevant because God exists outside our physical universe, but is the first cause of it. If you look back through the history of the cosmos it all comes down to a central point. Atheists have no explanation for why the matter of the big bang existed in the first place. Maybe it isn't the concept of a God as in any earthly religion but there has never been a doubt as to the existence of some sort of power greater than humans that in some way caused the universe to come about.

I just find this argument so vague that it's totally useless; you haven't really defined anything at all. Why do the Power always have sentient? The vast majority of the forces of the universe are non-sentient and impersonal. At the end of the day we shouldn't let our cosmos be defined by bronze age mythology.

[quetzalcoatl]

I just find this argument so vague that it's totally useless; you haven't really defined anything at all. Why do the Power always have sentient? The vast majority of the forces of the universe are non-sentient and impersonal. At the end of the day we shouldn't let our cosmos be defined by bronze age mythology.

While I tend to agree, I can't find much harm in such beliefs, if they provide comfort. The religious impulse is part of human nature - it is bound up with art , love, tenderness, and longing - the non-rational side of experience that gives life much of its bite and savor. Yes it's frustrating how such religious longings can make otherwise sensible people fall prey to charlatans, but such is life.

[republicuk]

The first cause always made a lot of sense to me. Ultimately the question of "what created God?" is irrelevant because God exists outside our physical universe, but is the first cause of it. If you look back through the history of the cosmos it all comes down to a central point. Atheists have no explanation for why the matter of the big bang existed in the first place. Maybe it isn't the concept of a God as in any earthly religion but there has never been a doubt as to the existence of some sort of power greater than humans that in some way caused the universe to come about.

1. It doesn't matter if it "makes sense" to you, the storyline of Star Wars "makes sense" but there doesn't get us anywhere in demonstrating something to be true.
2. The question of what created God is not irrelevant, to simply state that your proposed God is exempt from cause is a textbook special pleading fallacy we hear from you guys time and time again with this argument. You don't get to make baseless assertions like this about God within an argument for the existence of God that is not even coherent.
3. Not all atheists believe in the big bang or evolution. I have no problem in saying I have absolutely no idea where we came from or how we began, that is the most logical conclusion I can come to based on my knowledge, an idea that you think "makes sense" or sounds appealing to you is worth nothing.
4. There has always been doubt.

[starman2003]

... God exists outside our physical universe...

What evidence?? There's none.

Atheists have no explanation for why the matter of the big bang existed in the first place.

There was no matter at the time of the big bang.

.... there has never been a doubt as to the existence of some sort of power greater than humans that in some way caused the universe to come about.

Tell that to Stephan Hawking, an atheist who knows a heck of a lot more about the Universe and its origins.

[Someone5]

The first cause always made a lot of sense to me. Ultimately the question of "what created God?" is irrelevant because God exists outside our physical universe, but is the first cause of it.

In what way is that logical contortion intellectually satisfying? All you have done is create a meaningless "deity" that is defined precisely according to your need to inject the word "god" into your explanation of the universe.

Okay, let's say there is a first cause--why worship it? I mean, maybe the "first cause" was simply an imbalance of forces within a singularity. Where does the rest of the religious trappings come from? That position certainly bears no relationship to the religions that people worship--it doesn't, for example, validate the teachings of any holy text. It doesn't outline any meaningful guidelines for how to live your life, or the nature of morality, or anything really. It's just another way of saying "goddidit."

The idea of a "first cause" makes no sense to me, since time is a consequence of the universe existing; before the universe there could be no time as we understand it, therefore there could be no causality.

Atheists have no explanation for why the matter of the big bang existed in the first place.

"Why" is a human thing, not a natural thing.

Maybe it isn't the concept of a God as in any earthly religion but there has never been a doubt as to the existence of some sort of power greater than humans that in some way caused the universe to come about.

There is certainly a great deal of doubt about that very thing.

[Drlee]

The biggest problem for me with the first-causes argument is that it presupposes a very simple view of the very complicated concept of time. Here is what Hawking said:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

Too bad he is an atheist. I would like to have him on our team. But then, No one knows what goes on inside of the had of another.

[Oakwood]

The idea of a "first cause" makes no sense to me, since time is a consequence of the universe existing; before the universe there could be no time as we understand it, therefore there could be no causality

What's wrong with the idea that the universe, time, and therefore God, have always existed?

[Someone5]

What's wrong with the idea that the universe, time, and therefore God, have always existed?

It's a load of wishful thinking? It's not a matter of "why it is wrong," but rather a question of why you ought to think it right.

[Someone5]

The biggest problem for me with the first-causes argument is that it presupposes a very simple view of the very complicated concept of time. Here is what Hawking said:

Too bad he is an atheist. I would like to have him on our team. But then, No one knows what goes on inside of the had of another.

A beginning to time utterly demolishes the first cause argument, because it breaks causality.

[Drlee]

A beginning to time utterly demolishes the first cause argument, because it breaks causality.

What is it that you think God is anyway? Then read Hawkings' remarks again.

[Someone5]

What is it that you think God is anyway? Then read Hawkings' remarks again.

Even if we define god as a first cause, the argument fails.

A) In order for something to cause something else, the originating event must precede the result.
B) In order for one thing to precede another thing, the first must precede the second in time.
C) Time has a beginning.
D) Therefore, nothing that happened before time began can be said to cause anything, nor can anything that happened before time began be "first" since everything would happen simultaneously (by virtue of the lack of time).

God makes no sense when defined either as a first cause or when defined as the paternalistic deities of myth.

Incidentally, I do not think god is anything, since I do not find any reason to believe that such a thing exists. I find the concept utterly pointless.

[Drlee]

Even if we define god as a first cause, the argument fails.

With whom do you wish to argue? Yet again we have another atheist who believes that they can argue religious people out of religion by trying a scientific argument. That will not happen.

Here is what is wrong with your argument. You seem to believe that religious people see God as the cause of the universe (creator) ((and many do)) but that their definition of God relies on that. For religious people the creation story has little to do with their beliefs. It is just a history question. Mostly irrelevant but at best a curiosity. But the answer you will get from the vast majority of religious people is that it is a matter of faith. From those scientifically inclined you will simply get the comment that it is a mystery.

Setting aside for a moment the religious fundamentalists for whom an argument with a scientist has no appeal you are left with those religious people, like myself, whose definition of God does not rely on His creating the universe as YOU know it but rather creating the universe as I know it. Mature Christians (and I observe many of other faiths as well) find that any attempt to 'prove' God is not only useless but diverts our attention from what we are called to do e.g. feeding the hungry, curing the ill, comforting the afflicted and such. In other words, you will probably not change the minds of mature religious people.

You may use this argument to attack the beliefs of young or immature religious people. Most religious people go through periods of disbelief or questioning. To the extent that you think that attacking their faith is a "good" thing to do (you will have to be responsible for your definition of good; no doubt you will whine about the inquisition or some-such nonsense) then it might be a useful weapon in your arsenal. I would point out to you that attacking the faith of immature or vulnerable people is despicable in my opinion as it could knock the emotional props out from under people who at the time need them. It is, in that event, merely an act of cruelty on your part.

If you wish to engage with mature religious people you will have to craft an argument far more sophisticated than some nonsense about when time began. As I said before, this argument holds little interest for us as it simply has nothing to do with what religion means to us.

Understand what religion offers to me. It gives me a view of life that promises help when I need it far beyond the puny efforts of my fellow scientists, a way of exerting control on the seemingly uncontrollable, and the promise that my short century (if I am lucky) will lead to a wondrous eternity at least as engaging as this life. What does your view offer me to replace that?

Then there is the observation that (in my case) my circle of fellow Christians are very much involved in solving problems in my community upon which the scientific community (to the extent that such a thing actually exists), the government and all but a very few secular groups has essentially turned their collective backs.

So if you want to tilt with the weak, go ahead. It will certainly be fairly easy for you. If you wish to engage with the strong religious people then you have to come to where we are. We have no desire to go where your argument lies. We were there long long ago.

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Einstein

[Suska]

Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause

Here is your problem.

Here is the solution

all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions

there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another

In case you cannot follow that I will try to explain in my own words.

The notion of chain of causes leads to the notion of original cause, without the notion of chain of causes there is no problem - no notion of original cause. What there is instead is the healthier notion of what is present, and what is present is a myriad of willful forces in harmony or contention, therefore causation is immanent rather than deterministic, therefore we are endowed with agency, rather than automated - and that is a critical point without which nothing we can say or think here even matters or means anything. In theological terms it is a terrible mistake to represent God as a distant, unreachable and unreaching entity. If one is uncomfortable with the view of an immanent divinity then the notion of the nature of divinity must change in order for divinity to be anything at all, anything relevant at least. When divinity and cause are imminent a person is properly framed as present and active. The alternative is nonsensical; by observing billiard balls we cultivate a notion of consequences as mechanistic, but this observation is utterly discrete, if we include people in the observation the formula is swamped with ambiguity, therefore a mechanistic view is always discrete and not just useless but disheartening in the extreme; it defeats the experiment by ignoring the experimenter. Yet, it can easily be acknowledged that the experiment is bound to tell us nothing if we must include everything, it's better that way though, than to look at a billiard ball and say that all we are capable of is like that - to just sit there - when at the same time we take up the stick.

[Poelmo]

Understand what religion offers to me. It gives me a view of life that promises help when I need it far beyond the puny efforts of my fellow scientists, a way of exerting control on the seemingly uncontrollable, and the promise that my short century (if I am lucky) will lead to a wondrous eternity at least as engaging as this life. What does your view offer me to replace that?

Man, sometimes I wish I could make myself believe things like that (though I also fear that if I can really believe those things I can't trust myself to always be rational anymore), it would sure make life easier and more pleasant. How do you do it? Everything Someone5 has said is rational and correct, but that cannot shake you.

[Drlee]

Everything Someone5 has said is rational and correct, but that cannot shake you.

No. It can't shake me. Part of the reason is that he and I are talking about two entirely different things. He is talking about our limited but growing knowledge of what we believe to be science and I am talking about what I believe to be my relationship with God. I believe God exists and that he is aware of me and acts upon the world in which I live. I do not know the mechanism by which he does this. But here is a key point to answering your important question Poelmo.

My Christian faith makes some demands of me in exchange for some pretty good rewards. But look at what those demands are. In not a single one of my religious texts nor traditions am I asked to prove God. He does not ask me to do that. In fact he asks me to put aside that pursuit in favor of far more important ones such as feeding the hungry, healing the ill and caring for the poor. I believe that if God wanted me to 'solve for God' he would have sent a physicist not his Son. When I use the term "mature Christian" I am not referring to age. I am referring to one who has come to realize just this. That the message in the Bible is much less about how we treat God and much more about how we treat each other. So how does my faith tell me that I should seek God? In a particle accelerator? Test tube? Nope. It says these two things:

31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

and this

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So once a mature Christian comes to realize the full impact of these two versus he must conclude that these two versus simply trump the rest of the bullshit.

So does God demand of me that I ignore science? Not at all. He simply tells me that science is not the way to find him. That is unless that science is dedicated to feeding the sick, curing the ill, etc.

Man, sometimes I wish I could make myself believe things like that (though I also fear that if I can really believe those things I can't trust myself to always be rational anymore),

Let me ask you. Do you really trust yourself to always be rational now? I hope not. If you try to be Mr. Spock you will soon find the world a very boring place. You could say the same thing about love. Once you fall head over heels how can you ever trust yourself to be rational again? Or how can you enjoy a sunny day on the beach when you should be inside out of the UV eating a balanced diet and doing at least 30 minutes of cardio a day while engaging in mind enhancing exercises so you can statistically live an additional 13.2 months before you go out like a light bulb rendering all you have ever done a mere fading memory in a universe dedicated to the proposition that all entropy is created equal.

No I'll take my world. You can call it a fantasy. I'm used to it. From my perspective it makes me happy, gives me hope and promises immortality. And to get all of these things all I need to do is stuff to make other people happier, healthier and wiser. It is a smokin' deal. But check it out. If I am wrong nobody wins.

sometimes I wish I could make myself believe things like that

You can. You have to do two things. The first is to stop worrying about what others think of your beliefs. You have no obligation to let them even know what your beliefs are. Then realize that in the end we are all alone standing in the universe. Everything that goes on in your head is a choice. Your choice. You can choose to be anxious, fearful, content or just plain happy. I have decided to be happy. I associate with people who make me happy. Helping people makes me happy. It makes me happy to watch a cold homeless man put on the first new coat he has had in a decade because I bought it for him. Why did I buy it? Because my happiness depends on it. I will risk that someone5 thinks that my scientific conclusions are incorrect. They are not incorrect though. My scientific conclusions are based upon science. My faith and happiness....aren't. It is really as simple as that.

[Poelmo]

@DrLee

I guess it depends on personality. I could never believe in christianity because even when I feel there is "something" more I'd have to conclude that there is no reason I shouldn't become a buddhist or a muslim, or create my own religion (after all, it's rational to assume every religion on Earth is wrong and even if that's not the case it's rational to assume we cannot know which religion is right). It is not so much faith that puzzles me, but faith with certainty, without any doubt and faith in an established religion that puzzles me.

[Drlee]

There is no such thing as "faith with certainty". The two terms are mutually exclusive.

As for making up your own religion....You can do that but then you know for certain that it is a human construction and is almost certainly baseless. You can not do that with the world's religions. You have no proof either way which is the nature of faith.

after all, it's rational to assume every religion on Earth is wrong

No its not. That is irrational. What is rational is to assume that you don't know.

You need to stop worrying about religion which is the way people band together to express their faith in God and start worrying about your direct relationship to God. Perhaps a religion can help you find that and perhaps it can not. But as for you seeking a relationship with God, then that is between the two of you and the ball is in your court.