Yes, the first cause argument is flawed, but not for the reasons argued. It is flawed because it poses a first cause, which is an assumption. The argument posed is that the universe was created. The assumption is that it was created from nothing and therefore God, who is outside of the realm of creation and thus non-causal, created the universe.
The mistake here is that it is not known what existed before the Big Bang, but it is reasonable to postulate there was something, just not the universe as we know it. It is also not a reasonable argument to pose a mathematical comparative of zero to infinity, and thus the reverse, primarily because there is once again the "assumption" of a zero. In truth, a person counting from zero to infinity merely "chose" to start at zero, but zero is not the beginning, merely the zero sum interpretation separating negative numbers from positive numbers.
Therefore the flaw in the argument is that assumptions are made to argue first cause. And while we do make many assumption in scientific analysis, these assumptions are based on data/evidence and a degree of reasonable thought, not omission for the sake of expediency or opportunistic interpretation.
What I'm saying is that it is an assumption that something created the universe, it is also an assumption that nothing cannot create nothing, therefore it is an assumption that something outside of the nothing, not subject to nothing, created the universe. The next assumption is made that this something is an entity, and the final assumption is that it is God.
As you can see, that's a lot of assumptions, all of which are completely devoid of supporting evidence. So, instead of arguing, "
who created God?" as a rebuttal, the better arguments should be:
- Do you know there was nothing before the universe?
- Do you know that nothing was ever a state?
- Do you know that nothing cannot create nothing?
- Do you know what constitutes nothing?
- Do you know if nothing has parameters and, if so, then is it truly nothing?
- Is it not reasonable, based on your series of assumptions, that if something created something from nothing, then something else at one point created that something from nothing, ad infinitum, which in itself demonstrates infinity?
- What makes a something (which created something out of nothing, which itself was created out of nothing by something, which itself was created out of nothing by something, ad infinitum) into an entity, and in turn makes it "your" God?
The answer to all of these is,
"you don't know," and thus First Cause is a filler for ignorance.
“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window.” ~ Stephen King
