Does the Universe have a cause?

Question

Last week, I asked a question about positive reasons to believe that God does not exist. That question is here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsKKLKhsmib_svek3mG8H2bsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100702194217AAtxC2a I received very few answers that actually attempted to address the question, but was asked to present some arguments that I'd like to see refuted. Therefore:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Astute readers will recognize this as what's become popularized as the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence. Do you agree with this argument? If not, which premise(s) do you disagree with? Why do you disagree?

Is there a compelling reason to discount this argument for God's existence?

Answer 1

Maybe!



It depends, though if you mean the Universe as 'the everything' or the physical universe (little u) we find ourselves in and may be part of a greater whole. It also depends whether you mean the Universe as it has turned out to be, or the underlying state of existence which may or may not give rise to a Universe.



The problem is that time is part of the universe (little u), and our normal sense of cause/effect, beginning/end depends on this time already existing. Thus we have to think of any causation in a non-temporal way, possibly from a different dimensional perspective that still allows sequences.



Because of this sequence issue, your 1-3 steps are invalid outwith any sequential dimension. Such a sequential state may or may not be part of the underlying nature of existence, so these steps presume conditions that may be invalid.



On the quantum level, 1-3 is incorrect as things pop into existence and disappear all the time. Virtual particles. At this level, existence is probabilistic, not deterministic, so such sequences are invalid. If any causation of the universe originates at the quantum level, cause & effect need not apply.



It's valid to ask why have we such quantum 'rules' of existence, but we don't know the answer to that as yet as we have no theory of existence. At present it's a very difficult area to research - that's why we build accelerators like the LHC to edge our knowledge forward.



The best descriptions of universe explanations I've encountered so far, and still readable by non-physicists (with a bit of maths) are:



http://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/the-origin-of-the-universe

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/self-caused.html

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/56742.aspx



Also the BA here (not mine!):

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100708185141AAOCew9

Answer 2

Yes. The Kalam cosmological argument is irrefutable. To deny it would be to reject the very principle of causality, denying the possibility of science.



What has become certain is that the universe has NOT existed forever, as atheists claimed; rather, it had a definite beginning in the Big Bang, from a single mathematical point at the beginning of time, about 14 billion years ago.



Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause, but that cause cannot be a natural cause, which can only operate in time and space. The only other type of cause is a personal cause, an intelligent designer.



We recognize personal causation as a reasonable alternative to natural causation. For instance, I can ascribe the whistling we hear in the kitchen to the expanding gas of heated water vapor being forced through a tiny opening (a natural cause), or I can ascribe it to my wife making a pot of tea (a personal cause). In the case of the Big Bang, no natural cause is possible, making a supernatural cause the only reasonable alternative.



Note that the supernatural cause of the intelligent designer could not have a beginning or cause, because beginnings and causes can only occur after the advent of time.



Cheers,

Bruce

Answer 3

I don't mean to derail this, but I'm puzzled why we are using things such as cosmology to either prove or disprove a god. You capitalized the G so I'm assuming you mean the god of the bible?



You don't need to look into space to question that. The claim of the religion is not:-



“We think there is... like, somthin' out there.”



The religion has a rather detailed famous book that can be researched.

You don't need cosmology to research a Hebrew book. You need to read the works of biblical scholars using archaeological evidence and comparing the similarities with other religions.

Something easy to do (a few clicks away on Amazon,) and does not require you to look into space.



*IF* the religion simply left it as “We think there might be a higher power in space...” then fair enough.

But that's not the case. They have given us quite detailed stories and events around this god. If you can show a source for these stories, and show a source for the attributes of the god, then you're on your way to showing this might not be real.

This is exactly what some biblical scholars do, and it's where you need to look for the claim of a specific deity.

Answer 4

Prove your first assertion. You made a statement of philosophy. But to say that something must has a cause makes you superstitious. You believe in magic.



As to you second statement, we can 'look' back to the a point in time described as the first few microseconds of the universe. However, we have yet to 'look' beyond that. What we see at that point may be the beginning of the universe, or it may be something quite different. I'm content to wait and say, "Right now, I don't know."



Finally, if you insist in a 'cause' for the universe and you insist that cause is the will of 'god', then you must consider the question, "What caused 'god'. Turtles all the way down, Dr. Bob.

Answer 5

We must separate those who at least appear to simply not believe (ie - don't give it much thought) from those who engage in continuous refutation of said existence.



Those in the latter group are the curious ones. What is the driving force behind constantly engaging in activity that bolsters disbelief in something?



We, of course, might posit that perhaps there is something deeper at play. Something with which the person in question would rather not contend. We cannot prove this and they would deny it vehemently. I still contend that the proof is in the content of the contributions.



Once one begins to even * consider * the existence of God, new questions form. OK, God might exist. Now what? It is the "now what?" that causes trepidation.

Answer 6

To believe that god is uncaused is equally valid to believe that matter/energy of the universe is uncaused.



Universe might have been caused (better word to use is came into existence) by the Big Bang event, but the matter/energy that exists HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. What justification do I have to believe matter/energy always exists?



The universe (all the matter/energy) exists, because we do (exist). Did it exist yesterday, the day before, and so on to the first moment of its existence from the occurrence of the Big Bang? It did. Was Big Bang "poofed" from nothing? The most probable answer is that it came from a singularity and not from nothing.



What was before singularity is unanswerable, but since "matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed", singularity itself contained the matter/energy of our universe, and prior to that it still could exist in other unimaginable dimensions of matter/energy.



God's existence is premised upon "god has always existed". How is it more valid than "matter/energy (of the universe) has always existed"?



The premise for god becomes less valid than "matter/energy has always existed" because of one single fact: matter/energy exists while there is no single shred of evidence to support god without bringing in false premises of "timeless, immutable, changeless" to the attributes of god and these are logical fallacy and these attributes cannot reside in our reality which further lump them more into the realm of imagination.



*side note: Even if a religious person were to insist that universe was created by god, then which of the many gods or creators? Were such god(s) caused? Is Tao the supreme being the cause of gods? And this claim has to proven with irrefutable evidence to support it. Can those who made such claims support the claim, and eliminate all competing gods, creators to determine why that particular god exhibited perfection? Sacred books with contradictions, errors would be automatically out of the race.

Answer 7

I don't know rather it does or not. The first statement is blatantly untrue as things happen with no cause on a quantum scale all the time.



But even if I agreed it did, that wouldn't mean the cause was a god.

Answer 8

It is better to say "nothing needs a cause". Because in the end that is what you end up with.



Though I am compelled to believe the "prime mover" argument, but you find yourself back in the same place.

Answer 9

the cause of the universe is God. The cause of God is uncaused.

Answer 10

This an excellent question for the Science section.

Answer 11

The universe ie created by Allah.

Answer 12

Peoples beliefs make them happy. It gives them something to look forward to. There is no point trying to disprove it if it makes people happy.

Answer 13

The idea of 'cause' was invented by man

The idea of 'God' was invented by man

Answer 14

The Universe does have a cause. That cause is not God.