TED Conversations

Sunny Qureshi

CEO, IQ Training & Consultancy

This conversation is closed.

Can we prove Aristotle’s “Prime Mover”:Everything that happens is caused by something else?Then what caused the first cause?


The cause of the universe might be eternal, thus eliminating the need for a cause. As people have accepted the Big Bang Theory, so this objection has fallen out of favor.

It is worth pointing out that time is an aspect of the universe,without the universe, there is no time. It has existed at every point in time and that at no point in time has there been no universe.

1.Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause?
2. Universe began to exist therefore it has a cause "the first cause" or was the matter already present that caused it?
4. If it was the first cause then what caused the first cause?


Closing Statement from Sunny Qureshi

The Debate was a mixture of philosophical and scientific arguments presented by members.

The question still remains unanswered as both schools of thought were inconclusive on the God or no God debate.

The problem is of the fact that both atheists and theists are both opposed to each others "belief". Even in science, hypothesisation which is a kind of belief that has not been proved exists.

This debate and other debates will remain inconclusive unless and until a Collaborative stance is not adopted by the two.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 13 2012: The problem, as I see it, in asking what caused the "first cause" is that it begs the question. If you actually had a "first cause" then it would not need a cause insofar as it is the "first." If one is going to utilize Scholastic (Thomistic) arguments for the existence of God, then what about the following.

    There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe:

    1. It is Uncaused
    2. Self-caused
    3. Caused

    The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

    It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.

    Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.

    It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.

    Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.

    I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who agues for the eternal existence of God?
    • Mar 13 2012: It's not the "same fallacy" because an uncaused reality does not need you to accept the existence of anything else but reality itself, while adding a creator sounds a lot like mere, and unnecessary, fantasy.

      Interesting though that the opposite tends to be true, that those arguing for a god don't even imagine that we could stop in the realm of the real, of nature itself. They can't grasp the concept.

      [EDIT: There are many other things wrong with David's comment, but I think the answers for those other wrongs were provided by some other commenter here before.]
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Mar 14 2012: Gabo :

        I'm answering to your last reply to me .I was a bit busy in the last time .

        My idea was simple : to say that no god exist because there are so many claimed to exist it's obviously fallacious because there is a logical possibility one of them to exist and the rest to be square circles . If you think according to this logical possibility you can start 'narrow it down' .
        Of course you can think that none of them is existing even though it wasn't proven they all were made up as you suggested .

        I can't get to the true one by pure reason (not only by reason) , guiding me after some facts maybe I could but then it wouldn't be by pure reason . For example : I never excluded the possibility of seeing God and after that to think reasonable (by reason) that God exist . I never excluded the personal experiences , you remember that ?

        How the hell do I do that ? you know we have some 'revelations' , with their help ........ or maybe contacting God .

        Why would I bring you evidence ? if I can't , what about it ? if you wanna know if God exist or not go get them yourself , God to take care of Himself sharing them to you , why don't you try to contact Him ?
        • Mar 14 2012: You would have to read what I wrote again Eduard, because you are not making sense of what I said, but perhaps of what you think I said (I know you are talking about the "intellectual bankruptcy" conversation). Read carefully and you might notice. Try hard and understand what I said before attempting another answer.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Mar 16 2012: I think I did understand what you said : -it makes much more sense in your opinion to start by thinking that gods are made up until proven otherwise because you say there aren't reasons why one god would exist . You asked me also to bring you some evidences why would one god exist . Until then you say it's more logical to think that the all gods are made up .

        Yes, I know what you meant when you told me to read again .

        It's pretty logical what you said but it's not an answer to my idea (stated again in my last reply) :

        -I talked about possibilities , if we had have evidence for one possibility we wouldn't have called it possibility , we would have called it 'reality' . Therefore I don't need evidences to think at a possibility and to try to figure out if it can be part of reality or not .
        Should I ask you to read again my comments ?

        And you continue : it is worse you say to try to 'narrow it down' as long as I agree with you that by reason we can't get to god , in other words evidences are from the start excluded . My reply : well , I talked about 'pure reason' and about reason if nothing, let's say, special don't happen . But if it does , we can get to god by reason . In other words everything ends up to a kind of another of revelation . This is why also I replied at :' how the hell do I do that ?" by saying to contact the gods to see if they answer, or by saying to look in their revelations to can understand a bit what are we dealing with ..... and so on .

        I thank you for your time and patience ........... never forget (as long as we'll continue to meet here on Ted) , I'm not afraid to be found wrong and neither of hard words .
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Mar 16 2012: And by the way , your idea that God is evil/impotent because He created us defective as long as it is in relation with the Bible it's pure nonsense : God according to the Bible created us perfect and defective at the same time , this simply because He created us perfect beings and not gods . It's a kind of saying we have a negative quality
        You can't say a toy car company is 'impotent' because creates toy cars and not real cars .
        . As I said then I don't know why God did this and I can't label it as wrong and bad , in fact no human being can . It is proven more and more that your understanding of the Bible is defective (if I use the same word) .
        Another thing that was nonsensical at you is that you seem to have tried to found the wrongs in the Bible than to try to understand it (this is about your arguments from the same reply then). See the big picture first and after that we'll take care of unimportant (from the Bible perspective) claims like :
        -who killed who from whose order
        - the idea that the light existed before being created the stars ; in fact here we have the whole idea about creation ..... and so on.
        • Mar 17 2012: You cannot be perfect and defective at the same time. That's too obvious nonsense. Creating beings knowing that most would go to hell is either evil or incompetence (or both). Period. No discussion. Your god is a square circle.

          I read the bible trying to understand Eduard. I heard it all. I found the defects in all the answers. the special pleadings, the non-sequiturs, the contradictions, the equivocations, the false premises. I heard all the excuses, I heard all whatever. In the end, to believe that the Christian god is real requires you to believe that first, and that whatever we can't answer is because this god is incomprehensible. That we can't know why a perfect god would create to later get angry, for example drowning its failed creation out of anger as if this was the creation's fault. Sending so many to hell. We don't know, but "God" must have a perfect reason. Right. With that position, all gods will end up being real. You can't take this position of "god is love even if I don't have answers to obvious logical problems" with your god, and yet reject all the other gods. That would mean that you are reading the Koran just to find the worse in it ... the Popolvuh just to find the worst in it ... and so on.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2012: It is just special pleading not special pleading law

      It basically says that in order to favor one outcome, a person makes special allowances for that outcome. without giving any tangible evidence as to why that particular outcome should be allowed those special allowances and not the rest of the outcomes. In case of the Kalam argument, it gives a rule. "Everything has a cause" But it is making a special plea for God, by saying that God is a special case and requires no previous cause. Why? Why should this cause it calls God be granted an exemption to the cause-effect rules. If you are going to grant exemptions why not give that exemption to Big Bang lets say and be done with it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.