The First-Cause Argument

Their argument:

For every effect there must be a cause. And that cause is in turn an effect, effected by a previous cause. This includes existence. Thus if we go further down this reasoning, there will be a first cause, and that is God!

The rebuttal:

Superficially, one must understand that if every effect has a cause, and a cause is itself an effect, then God must be an effect, of which there must be a cause. If God does not apply to the cause-effect reasoning, then esentially effects do not need causes! One cannot simply exempt something simply because it will suit their own beliefs.So why then do people still use the same old logically fallacious argument to prove the existence of God - such that God's existence is necessary? One argument goes that God exists outside of time, such that GOD HAS ALWAYS ETERNALLY EXISTED. Religion requires so since having faith is being certain about the evidence that one does not have (from Hebrew 11:1). Religious people do this because evolution is characterized by time, and that evolution is about cause-effect. So to leave God out of cause-effect, one must say that God exists out of time altogether. This is a strange rationalization because if God exists out of time (remembering 'omni-existence'), and that only time defines existence, then God, instead, certainly cannot exist if God exists out of time. Basically, such reasoning is logically fallacious and, as such, is wishful thinking.

Please view http://hs.facebook.com/, the discussion board of "The Out Campaign", the section called "Philosophical Rebuttals of (any) God" to see the actual post that was posted by me.