Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Angrboda]

Ok here's my work.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore, the universe must have a cause

Any questions?

Let's take this a step at a time.

Premise 1 is false, as Cthulhu has pointed out, there are things which we know began to exist for which we can find no proximal cause for their beginning to exist. However, even setting that aside for the moment, the "beginning to exist" which this is referring to, that observed in everyday life, is not "beginning to exist" as a thing, but rather, beginning to exist as a form. When a cue ball strikes an eight ball, causing the eight ball to start rolling, nothing has begun to exist in the ontological sense. Energy that was contained in the rolling cue ball's atoms and rigid structure is transferred to the eight ball and it's rigid structure, causing it to roll. Nothing has "began to exist" in the sense of something coming from nothing. The atoms of both balls, as well as the total energy, remains. The form of matter and energy has changed, not its existence. When I create steel by heating iron and adding carbon, all the original atoms remain, only the form has changed.

Premise 2 is not known to be true, therefore it cannot be asserted as a true premise. The universe as we know it didn't exist before the big bang, but that doesn't mean the universe itself began with the big bang. There is no scientific consensus on the matter beyond we just don't know. However, what's important to note here is that the "began to exist" in the case of the universe is of a different kind than the beginning to exist referred to in premise 1. The beginning to exist of the universe, if there is one, is ontological, not simply formal, as in premise 1. The beginning to exist of the universe is a coming into being from nothing, whereas the beginning to exist of the first premise is the coming to be in a specific form that didn't previously exist, not of coming into existence from not existing.

So to reformulate, let's refer to "began to exist" in the first sense as having property P, and beginning to exist in the second sense as having property Q, and having a cause as property C.

Restating your original syllogism thus:

1. All things that have property P, have property C.
2. The universe has property Q.
3. Therefore the universe has has property C.

Stated in this way, it's clear that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Moreover, it's worth noting that if the universe is included in the first premise of "everything that begins to exist has a cause," then this is already assuming that the universe has such a cause, as the universe belongs to "everything," and by your assertion, as something that began to exist. Since that the universe has a cause is the conclusion you are trying to reach, stating that "everything" or all things have a cause — all things including the universe — is assuming the truth of your conclusion in one of the premises; this is the fallacy of begging the question.

It's already been noted that putting "God" as the uncaused cause is both bare assertion and special pleading.

So to sum up, in order to reach your conclusion, you need to ignore: two false or indeterminate premises, the fallacy of equivocation (P=/=Q), begging the question, special pleading AND bare assertion. I'm sorry, but this is hardly persuasive.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcqhG2GFGz4