Well, first off, there's no such thing as the Boarde Guth Vilenkin Theorem, though a similarly named Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem is often misrepresented as stating that the universe cannot be be past eternal when in fact it does not say that.
Second, that all things that began to exist must have a cause is an assertion which, when applied to the universe as a whole, has no evidence in support of it and may very well be wrong.
And third, there's no reason why a cause occurring at a select "moment" would have had to be a mind as arguments to the effect that it must, such as Al Ghazali's, are known to be flawed.
In short, it's not good enough for the skeptic because its main supports turn out to be false or invalid.
Second, that all things that began to exist must have a cause is an assertion which, when applied to the universe as a whole, has no evidence in support of it and may very well be wrong.
And third, there's no reason why a cause occurring at a select "moment" would have had to be a mind as arguments to the effect that it must, such as Al Ghazali's, are known to be flawed.
In short, it's not good enough for the skeptic because its main supports turn out to be false or invalid.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
