How do atheist respond to this logical argument?

Question

Premise 1: Everything that begins has a cause
Premise 2: The universe began
Conclusion: The universe had a cause

Note: if this cause is what we'd call a god, then it would exist outside of space and therefore outside of time so it would never have "began," so please don't ask "what was god's cause?"

So what would you say we know about this "cause"?

I would say that we can know that it's unbelievably powerful to create the universe from nothing. I'd also say that it must be a personal force to have fine tuned the universe, laws of physics, etc. to such a degree as to sustain life.

I'm intriged that atheists are saying that the universe didn't begin. This is what modern science has been teaching for some time now (big bang). Are you saying that we can't trust modern science such as astronomy, physics, etc.?

It seems you have a lot of faith.

If the cause is not a god of some sort, do you have another conclusion or option?

Answer 1

Oh, brother. This is the Argument from First Cause, which has been around for centuries and talked to death and beyond.

If God does not need a cause, then why should the universe need a cause? Because you say so, that's why. You cannot establish a valid argument by excluding terms and answers. This "logical argument" is really just assertions.

Another problem is that even if there was a cause of the universe, there is nothing to establish that this "first cause" was God or any god.

A further problem is that if God does not require a cause because he exists "outside of time," why does the universe require a cause within time? Time is one of the properties of the universe and cannot be applied to the universe as a whole, that is, time is a subset, not an independent entity existing without the universe. Time did not come to be until the universe came to be.

Essentially, whatever can be said about the "cause of God" can be said about the cause of the universe.

Get over it that there is no logical proof of the existence of God or of gods. Of course you are perfectly free to believe in God. Just don't try to use logic and "science" to try to prove what is in the end neither provable nor unprovable. That is the hallmark of what a scientific theory is: a scientific theory must be capable of DISproof. An unseen, unheard entity with unmeasureable properties cannot be disproved, for it can always be said to be there.

Answer 2

It's a giant universe in the market. I'm no longer certain it could be in any respect feasible to mention definitely what does or does not exist in the market. In reality, a few gods are meant to be (one way or the other) external the universe, so I'm no longer certain how any person is meant to mention what is in the market with none constant or dependable understanding. If it is helping, can arise with a meta-logical evidence for the non-life of an all-powerful being in a logical universe like ours is discovered to be. It's an evidence via contradiction (of direction). Firstly, I desire to set up an noticeable reality: all triangles have 3 facets. This is what is referred to as an analytic fact; this can be a indispensable fact on the grounds that it follows from definitions. We outline 3-sided polygons to be triangles, and we will be able to consequently finish always that every one triangles have 3 facets. If it had 4 facets, it could absolutely no longer be a triangle, as an alternative it could be some thing else. Secondly, there's the deductively legitimate argument, "P and no longer P implies Q". That is, if a contradiction is right (i.e. if some thing is each precise and fake), then each assertion whatever is right. It does not must relate to P in any respect. For illustration, if it simply so occurs that it is each raining and no longer raining on me, then it follows that every one cows are inexperienced and are named "Chris". This is a realistic (however counter-intuitive) theorem in good judgment. It implies that any logical approach with a contradiction is wholly vain, due to the fact that the whole thing could be each precise and fake. It additionally implies that our approach has no contradiction, due to the fact that no longer each assertion possible is each precise and fake. For illustration, it is nonetheless fake that a triangle has 4 facets, so there are not able to logically be a contradiction within the universe. Thirdly, an all-powerful being has limitless vigor. It would create a 4-sided triangle. Moreover, it would with out quite simply exchanging the that means of the phrase "triangle". It would actually create an item that each is a triangle and no longer with 3 facets. If it are not able to, then it could no longer be all-powerful. Finally, an all-powerful being with this vigor implies that it is feasible that, in the market, a 4-sided triangle exists. This is a *direct contradiction* with the actual assertion "a 4-sided would no longer potentially exist". It does not topic if the being in query is "above" good judgment or no longer (good, certainly any such being could must be above good judgment, prima facie). If it exists, the likelihood of some thing inconceivable exists, that is a contradiction. This could holiday good judgment all the time and area. It could be precise that one million + one million = three, that cows are inexperienced and named "Chris", that the being exists, that the being does no longer exist, and so on. But, due to the fact that a few of these matters aren't precise, this being are not able to exist. But yeah, if the gods do not must be all-powerful, then I've bought not anything common. It does not make inductive feel to finish that such beings will exist, due to the fact that we now have visible not anything with that type of vigor earlier than, however there is a first for the whole thing, correct? Well, besides the matters that do not exist...

Answer 3

The laws of physics that are apparent around us now, and give rise to the concept of cause and effect were not necessarily the same when space-time was being born. I don't think you can count on Premise 1. Also, the energy that is in the universe could have spewed into this universe from somewhere else, and it is a random and vain idea to think something like God did any of it. God is an idea put forth by unknowledgeable people before the real knowledge was available. Grow up.

Answer 4

to the folks that are claiming the universe has no beginning, is there anything that u can prove that has no beginning. Provide me with an example where there was no beginning. (don't tell me about theories or hypothetical arguments, give me an example that such a thing is possible.)

Secondly, logic and faith do co-exist. Newton and Einstein both believed in God. Unless of course u guys think u are way too smarter, then
EXCYYUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME!!!!

Answer 5

There are many leading physicists and scientists out there that have not in anyway shown that the universe "began." It's entirely possible that time and space are infinite. But, if you're religious, you have to assume the following things:
1) The universe is limited
2) The catalyst intended to make it
3) The catalyst intended what he made to evolve into us
4) His name is God
5) He wrote a book through men.
6) He provided us with a handy afterlife to assuage our fears of death.

That, my friend, is a lot of assuming.

Answer 6

Saying, "everything that begins has a cause" is an assumption. We KNOW things that are an EFFECT have a CAUSE, but we could imagine that something simply EXISTED, couldn't we? It is no less logical to assume that there was matter that simply existed than to say God simply existed.

Answer 7

Why is it that people like you cannot accept that we don't know everything and leave it at that. Some day in the future (if mankind doesn't blow itself up) there may be an acceptable explanation as to how the universe began, but for now, we just say we don't know and that it's okay not to know.

Answer 8

If the atheist accepted your premises, he/she would likely argue, "yes, and??" There's no arguments as to why that cause should be a deity or similar entity.

ADDED: "Another option"? "God exists because atheists fail to provide another objectively provable option" is NOT a logical argument. You've made great, unsubstantiated leaps here.

Answer 9

Humans are always worried about the beginnings of things. Pondering the beginning of the universe, as far as I'm concerned, ranks right up there with wondering how snowplow drivers get to work. As long as it's not my problem, I don't really care.

Answer 10

I'm not an athiest but from what you wrote; Who said the cause was GOD. That can easily be argued by an Atheist.