First Cause

The rational, teleological, and ontological arguments stand firm in right relation with observable data, which is, the universe had a beginning.If the universe had a beginning, then surely all matter must have had a beginning. What, then, was the First Cause to make life a reality?

Could you expand on your argument for this viewpoint some more and make it clear if you wish to discuss this from a scientific point of view or theological?

Yeah, I can expand it a bit. As far as theological or scientific thread??? Is there anyway that we can do both? If not, maybe we can make identical threads, one catering to the philosophical side of the house, and the other addressing the points of physical science.How about one topic in "Origin of Life," devoted to the scientific aspects, and "Faith and Belief," for the philosophical apects?Lemme know what you think so I can formulate a post in accordance to the rules.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

You OP was discussing the origin of the universe. Now you suggest putting this in "Origin of Life". They are separate, very separate.You can propose another topic (or even two if you think you can keep up with them).Change the OP of this one to make you expansion on it and make it clear if this is the theological one or otherwise. Also make it clear if you are talking about the origin of the universe or life.I think this springs from the "education" thread so you apparently mean it to be on the science side. You do, however, need separate theads for origin of life or the universe.

Very separate? How so? First Cause for the universe generally encompasses the origin of life. That's the way I've always understood the argument. What I mean is, the question about the origin of the universe usually precipitates from the question about the origin of life. Well, I'd like to consolidate them, but i realize that it would conflict with the forum rules. I don't know. What do you think the better argument, or the more interesting argument would come from? Philosophy or science? Eh, I'll just start writing and see where it takes me.

There is a huge gulf between them. Hugely different areas of research: one involves the most esoteric of physics the other chemistry.Trying to bring the two together is something like worrying about the strong force in the nucleus when you are trying to explain how a wind up clock works.Yes, everything has some relationship to everything else but if you arent' able to "chunk" things then all research or dicussion bogs down and wanders all over the map.Orgin of life research can take as given the existance of a universe with the physics and chemistry that we see. Then it needs to explain how imperfect replicators can arise given that background. Without the existance of a world with a know set of physical laws there is nothing to discuss.Evolution can take as given that imperfect self replicators exist. Without imperfect self-replicators there can be no biological evolution. The science is to explain what happens when you DO have those imperfect self-replicators.The big bang is explicitly NOT the point of orgin of the universe. It was treated that way once upon a time but the research now wants to answer what conditions cause a "bang" so there had to be conditions "before".Analogously: The selection of a computer and it's construction does not worry about the solid state physics within it's chips. It takes that as a given and goes from there.You HAVE to do this all the time or you can't make any progress AT ALL.Let someone know when you focussed your OP (or Ops)