Why Russell Will Always B Considered A 2nd Rate Philosopher

Bertrand Russell (Stalinist Philosopher)

"The First Cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easy to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there is a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested on the tortoise; and when they said , "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument really is no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause."

Let us critique this outmoded Twentieth Century Pseudo-Nihilist hypocrisy and Marxist Atheism one erroneous conclusion at a time, shall we mein Kamarades?

Perhaps the simplest and easy to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.)

Russell should quit now while he is ahead.

That argument, I suppose, does not carry much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be.

Cause is "not quite what it used to be"? Cause is the same Cause that it was at the dawn of Time and will be the same Cause a billion squared years from now. Cause is a necessary and universal principle which is a priori and all empirical data confirm the existence of this a priori principle. Cause and Effect will exist as immutable principles of the human mind for now and all of Time and Eternity.

The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have.

OK. I'll take your word for it... Cause has just as much "vitality" now as it ever will have and as it ever has had.

I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause

I didn't know people can become less wise with age but I suppose anything is possible.

until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.

OK. Fair enough. It cannot be answered. Mill is Agnostic but certainly not an Atheist. To conclude that one should practice Atheism as a result of Mill's (Kant's) argument is absurd. In other words - Mill pleads ignorance on the issue -- he simply doesn't know. He is Agnostic. Russell, the Bolshevik, of course takes Mill's Agnosticism as justification for Atheism.

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.

Everything must have a Cause except for the First Cause which is Uncaused. The First Cause is the First Cause. The First Cause cannot have a Cause because it is the First Cause.

If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God

There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beggining at all.

Fortunately this view has been completely demolished by modern science. We know empirically and mathematically that the world has a Cause. We know that the world was Caused by the birth of the Solar System, that the Solar System was Caused by the Galaxy, that the Galaxy was Caused by the Universe, and that the Universe was Caused by the Big Bang. The Big Bang, as far as we can tell is the First Cause. Therefore Russell's opinion that the Universe is Uncaused will forever be condemned to the trash heap of Twentieth Century immorality, Marxist Atheism, and Pseudo-Nihilist genocide.

The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

This reminds me of Hegel's one page so-called "refutation" of Kant. Russell refutes Aristotle, indeed every Theist philosopher in history in exactly one page. No wonder Russell will always be considered a second rate thinker.

i am not even going to read this. i assume its because hes an islamofacist or something. probably a leftist nazi collaborator.

i am not even going to read this.

You're not fooling anyone; we know you're illiterate.

i am not even going to read this.

You're not fooling anyone; we know you're illiterate.

look at the brains on that one, illiterate but able to type? surely you can come up wit ha better response than that. i thought you were smarter than the mass of left wing islamofacist nazi sympathisers?

...and we know that you are incapable of carrying an argument without lobbing verbal stones at people, making you nothing more than the simplest form of hypocrite.

If you take world to mean 'universe' it makes more sense.

We know empirically and mathematically that the world has a Cause. We know that the world was Caused by the birth of the Solar System, that the Solar System was Caused by the Galaxy, that the Galaxy was Caused by the Universe, and that the Universe was Caused by the Big Bang.

... what caused 'the big bang'?

Stacks

... what caused 'the big bang'

The First Cause aka G-d. The First Cause is Uncaused because it is the First Cause.

I'm not going to get into a protracted debate with you about this as, to be honest, I don't know enough about this particular subject to argue effectively but isn't it a little naive to believe in the big bang as a definite truth, when it is only a theory.

New discoveries are made all the time regarding our universe and its nature and thus IMO any philosophy which bases itself on scientific data is always going to be flawed - just as russel was flawed when he said 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beggining at all'. You are effectively saying 'There is no reason to suppose that the Big Bang had any cause other than the first cause'

Stacks

isn't it a little naive to believe in the big bang as a definite truth, when it is only a theory.

No. The Big Bang is a "theory" just as black holes are a "theory." Is it naive to believe in black holes? I believe in both the Big Bang and black holes even though I have never experienced them directly. So-called "theory" in science is similar to "theory" in chess -- in other words "theory" is synonymous with correctness and truth.

New discoveries are made all the time regarding our universe and its nature and thus IMO any philosophy which bases itself on scientific data is always going to be flawed

This is true. However with regard to Causality and the First Cause, part of my argument is that Cause is a priori. It doesn't matter what new empirical discoveries are made because Cause and First Cause are a priori truths. I guess you could construct a scenario in which humans became immortal and we had a device that could look back in time and we looked back in time ad finitum and it turned out the universe had no beginning. But that sounds pretty fantastic doesn't it?

just as russel was flawed when he said 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beggining at all'. You are effectively saying 'There is no reason to suppose that the Big Bang had any cause other than the first cause'

Hmm. I don't see the analogy clearly. Perhaps as Russell says, "due to the poverty of our [my] imagination." We Theists are not sure if the Big Bang is itself the First Cause or if the Big Bang was Caused by the First Cause. In either case the First Cause [G-d] is a priori truth.

theory is far from synonomous with correctness and truth.

its just as much a cotradiction as a synonym, its got a complete different meaning somewhere between the two.

you are clutching at straws with this conection.

take you time before you post next time.