(April 20, 2014 at 6:56 am)Metalogos Wrote: Finally, I would ask the questioner to give a proof or argument that supports the position that the universe could exist and indeed does exist without an initial cause or Prime Mover. In other words, what is the plausible, natural explanation for the existence of the universe that you seem to refer to? If it is the singularity posited by the Big Bang theory, I would simply ask 'From whence came the singularity?' Be it known that I can accept an argument that would posit that the singularity and the Prime Mover are one in the same. In fact, based on the law of conservation of matter, I would argue that this is indeed a very plausible explanation for the known universe, I.e, God is the universe and the universe is God, or Dog or Mog or Gom or whatever name you want to attach to the Prime Mover.
Well, my official answer is that I don't know.
That being said, how do you know the universe isn't the prime mover? Sure, it's something that can't be proven, and I'm not asserting it's the case, but if the prime mover has to be something and we don't know how the universe did start, then it does seem like a possibility.
Whatever we pick to be the prime mover, one has to ask "what caused it?". If it has no cause by its definition, then it's really just a special pleading response to the question.
If we give that cause the name "God", and give God qualities like being timeless or eternal, then we have to accept that we are taking the existence of God and those qualities on faith and not evidence. Similarly, we have to assume the universe doesn't have those qualities.
TL;DR: I don't know, the the prime mover/first cause argument raises as many questions as it answers, so it's just kicking the "I don't know" can back one step down the road.
