This argument is really past it's prime, we've heard it over and over again for years, often spouted by apologists. It usually goes like this:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
But I think it's time should be up. The down side for the religious, is that it's the most important argument, it attempts to set up the moment in which god does his ultimate magic trick, making a universe from nothing! Here are a few reasons why it should be abandoned.
1) It doesn't prove god.
My question is, where is god in the last premise? It simply says a cause, if you accept the logical inferences that is (and there are reasons to deny many of the premises). This cause could be literally anything.
Even if the reasoning is valid, it kinda wouldn't even prove it, but now let me explain: Existence claims require, you guessed it, evidence. You can't just argue something into existence like that, and expect people to believe it.
A further even if: Even IF your reasoning is valid, and you give evidence for this god (for example proving the only way the universe can come into existence is by a god), you must remember that god was always meant to be the perfect explanation for everything. God was designed PERFECTLY to answer all of our questions, by curious but delusional bronze aged men. Before life used to be solid evidence for a designer.
When we didn't understand disease, we thought it was punishment from god, in fact it says right there in the bible. Do people still believe disease is punishment from god, or microbial bacteria and viruses? Bacteria and viruses are normally believed (unless they live in a very uneducated area). Just because it makes sense or is philosophically sound that a god made the universe, it doesn't make it true. God has a poor track record of being totally incorrect.
2) It doesn't prove your specific god.
Even if you somehow get to the conclusion 'god exists', which you cannot get to, it doesn't prove a god of a specific religion. This is the single biggest reason why if you follow a specific religion, you should totally abandon this argument.
I could replace the cause of 'god' to a 'seahorse lama blender', and I would be perfectly justified in my view that a seahorse lama blender brought the universe into existence. In the bible's case, a jealous, vengeful god that hates men putting their penises in cattle, and will send you to a fiery pit with a horned guy in a red spandex suit, to be jabbed with a pitchfork in eternal agony for not believing in him (even with lack of evidence, but remember, he loves you!), is just as arbitrary as a green spaceman plumber in a dildo as a spaceship creating the universe with his ship's magic dildo unicorn powers. Proposing a god is simply defining it into existence, just as I can define an orange watermelon elf jet plane into existence with my words. These sorts of claims are unfalsifiable, and serve no practical purpose, let alone providing future predictions: Arguing for a god 'causing' the universe is sort of like arguing gravity is caused by invisible unicorns standing on everyone's head.
Watch, as I do irrefutable logic, proving a green spaceman plumber in a dildo as a spaceship created the universe:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
4) That cause is a green spaceman plumber in a dildo as a spaceship.
3) There are many reasons to deny most of the premises.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This seems like a reasonable premise, but it's really not. Sure, objects turn into other objects require causes, but do objects very existence therefore require a cause? I have no clue, and neither do religious people. We seek causes for things, which is why many people believe in god, but when you're comparing universes coming into existence to a person sculpting marble, there is a clear distinction, and I really hope I don't have to point them out, for the sake of your own intellectual capacity. I don't claim a universe can come into existence uncaused, but what I am entailing is caution in complex areas like this.
Even if I did claim the universe came from absolute nothing, I see no huge problem, because when you're talking about it from a causality perspective, god is no more of a satisfying answer. Because god himself is uncaused. I'm just talking the more simple answer, and using occums razor by cutting out the god part.
2) The universe began to exist.
There are many reasons to deny this premise. First of all, is the fact the universe may of not began to exist in the first place. And second of all, is alot like the first of all: It may of not 'began' in the way we recognize that is, in the first place. Sure, you may be able to prove a beginning, but it doesn't prove an ACTUAL beginning, as in it's coming into existence. A universe can have a beginning as well as not coming into existence. This is like the b-theory of time. On this, saying the universe 'came into existence' is like saying on this measuring stick, the stick came into existence in the first centimeter.
There is also the objection that the universe always existed, although some of those scientific models have some inconsistencies, as with any scientific field, there could be a discovery which mends it.
4) You must already accept certain concepts or ideas to even accept this argument.
In specific, you must accept the heavily criticized a theory of time, which defies much of Einsteins theory of relativity. The reason why you must accept the A theory of time, is that it views time as every present moment being 'real', and the past/future do not exist. There are very good reasons to not accept this. Thus if you do accept this, you must believe the universe came into existence at some point, since time is static.
5)There is even scientific evidence to deny a traditional 'cause' of the universe.
Quantum mechanics and virtual particles, enough said. These types of events are examples of things that are uncaused. They are only caused if you accept a deterministic version of quantum mechanics. I hear many apologists say "the quantum vacuum is not nothing!" sure, but according to quantum mechanics a false energy vacuum can appear for no particular reason, simply because the energy of a system under quantum mechanics cannot be zero from uncertainty effects. Physicists are right when they say "nothing is unstable".
6)You're pretending to know the answer to a question we don't know much about yet.
The question of "how did the universe come into existence?" is ultimately a scientific question, which we may never know. In the mean time I will pretend I do know from just doing a few logical deductions (which could be wrong), even if your reasoning is correct (it's not), it doesn't give good enough reasons to believe a god created the universe. And if your god will send me to eternal torture just on the fact of being intellectually honest, just goes to show what a horrible fictional character this god is.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
But I think it's time should be up. The down side for the religious, is that it's the most important argument, it attempts to set up the moment in which god does his ultimate magic trick, making a universe from nothing! Here are a few reasons why it should be abandoned.
1) It doesn't prove god.
My question is, where is god in the last premise? It simply says a cause, if you accept the logical inferences that is (and there are reasons to deny many of the premises). This cause could be literally anything.
Even if the reasoning is valid, it kinda wouldn't even prove it, but now let me explain: Existence claims require, you guessed it, evidence. You can't just argue something into existence like that, and expect people to believe it.
A further even if: Even IF your reasoning is valid, and you give evidence for this god (for example proving the only way the universe can come into existence is by a god), you must remember that god was always meant to be the perfect explanation for everything. God was designed PERFECTLY to answer all of our questions, by curious but delusional bronze aged men. Before life used to be solid evidence for a designer.
When we didn't understand disease, we thought it was punishment from god, in fact it says right there in the bible. Do people still believe disease is punishment from god, or microbial bacteria and viruses? Bacteria and viruses are normally believed (unless they live in a very uneducated area). Just because it makes sense or is philosophically sound that a god made the universe, it doesn't make it true. God has a poor track record of being totally incorrect.
2) It doesn't prove your specific god.
Even if you somehow get to the conclusion 'god exists', which you cannot get to, it doesn't prove a god of a specific religion. This is the single biggest reason why if you follow a specific religion, you should totally abandon this argument.
I could replace the cause of 'god' to a 'seahorse lama blender', and I would be perfectly justified in my view that a seahorse lama blender brought the universe into existence. In the bible's case, a jealous, vengeful god that hates men putting their penises in cattle, and will send you to a fiery pit with a horned guy in a red spandex suit, to be jabbed with a pitchfork in eternal agony for not believing in him (even with lack of evidence, but remember, he loves you!), is just as arbitrary as a green spaceman plumber in a dildo as a spaceship creating the universe with his ship's magic dildo unicorn powers. Proposing a god is simply defining it into existence, just as I can define an orange watermelon elf jet plane into existence with my words. These sorts of claims are unfalsifiable, and serve no practical purpose, let alone providing future predictions: Arguing for a god 'causing' the universe is sort of like arguing gravity is caused by invisible unicorns standing on everyone's head.
Watch, as I do irrefutable logic, proving a green spaceman plumber in a dildo as a spaceship created the universe:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
4) That cause is a green spaceman plumber in a dildo as a spaceship.
3) There are many reasons to deny most of the premises.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This seems like a reasonable premise, but it's really not. Sure, objects turn into other objects require causes, but do objects very existence therefore require a cause? I have no clue, and neither do religious people. We seek causes for things, which is why many people believe in god, but when you're comparing universes coming into existence to a person sculpting marble, there is a clear distinction, and I really hope I don't have to point them out, for the sake of your own intellectual capacity. I don't claim a universe can come into existence uncaused, but what I am entailing is caution in complex areas like this.
Even if I did claim the universe came from absolute nothing, I see no huge problem, because when you're talking about it from a causality perspective, god is no more of a satisfying answer. Because god himself is uncaused. I'm just talking the more simple answer, and using occums razor by cutting out the god part.
2) The universe began to exist.
There are many reasons to deny this premise. First of all, is the fact the universe may of not began to exist in the first place. And second of all, is alot like the first of all: It may of not 'began' in the way we recognize that is, in the first place. Sure, you may be able to prove a beginning, but it doesn't prove an ACTUAL beginning, as in it's coming into existence. A universe can have a beginning as well as not coming into existence. This is like the b-theory of time. On this, saying the universe 'came into existence' is like saying on this measuring stick, the stick came into existence in the first centimeter.
There is also the objection that the universe always existed, although some of those scientific models have some inconsistencies, as with any scientific field, there could be a discovery which mends it.
4) You must already accept certain concepts or ideas to even accept this argument.
In specific, you must accept the heavily criticized a theory of time, which defies much of Einsteins theory of relativity. The reason why you must accept the A theory of time, is that it views time as every present moment being 'real', and the past/future do not exist. There are very good reasons to not accept this. Thus if you do accept this, you must believe the universe came into existence at some point, since time is static.
5)There is even scientific evidence to deny a traditional 'cause' of the universe.
Quantum mechanics and virtual particles, enough said. These types of events are examples of things that are uncaused. They are only caused if you accept a deterministic version of quantum mechanics. I hear many apologists say "the quantum vacuum is not nothing!" sure, but according to quantum mechanics a false energy vacuum can appear for no particular reason, simply because the energy of a system under quantum mechanics cannot be zero from uncertainty effects. Physicists are right when they say "nothing is unstable".
6)You're pretending to know the answer to a question we don't know much about yet.
The question of "how did the universe come into existence?" is ultimately a scientific question, which we may never know. In the mean time I will pretend I do know from just doing a few logical deductions (which could be wrong), even if your reasoning is correct (it's not), it doesn't give good enough reasons to believe a god created the universe. And if your god will send me to eternal torture just on the fact of being intellectually honest, just goes to show what a horrible fictional character this god is.
