Atheists, scientifically and logically, shouldn't there be a first cause for the existence of ...?

Question

.the universe?
Scientifically and logically, scientists go looking for causes in all things - what causes hot weather? what causes the apple to fall? what causes sickness and disease? what causes heart disease? what causes the seed to germinate and grow into a tree?
In other words, science is all about *causes*.
So, isn't it logical that *someone*, *something*, caused the universe to come into being?
The question isn't about what caused the universe to come into existence ('Big Bang'), the question isn't about whether at this time we know or not know who or what caused the universe to come into being ('we don't know', 'it doesn't matter');

...the question IS - Atheists, approaching it scientifically and logically, there *is* a cause for the existence of the universe, isn't it?

The answer can only be 'yes', isn't it, since everything scientifically and logically pursued by scientists show there is a cause, otherwise all science and logic, which Atheists rely on, fail.
Do you agree?

Answer 1

I honestly don't know if there is a cause for the universe. What if there isn't a cause? It's the same argument when theists say "God has always been and has no cause". By that same argument, can't we say that the universe has always been and has no cause?

Answer 2

I'm no atheist, but the logical error in your argument is pretty obvious. The context of your question indicates you are trying to show that God exists, but the problem is that you are right on one thing you say that shoots down your point. Yes, someTHING has to be the cause of all these things. But that something does not have to be a God or intelligent being. It can just be science. Yes. Something causes an apple to fall. Gravity. Yes, something causes hot weather. Pressure systems and the sun. Yes, something causes sickness and disease. Germs and bacteria. Yes, something caused the universe to come into existence. That is logical enough. But it doesn't have to be God. It can just be the big bang or some other unknown scientific phenomenon. To assume it is a God is just that: an assumption. It is no more logical or scientific than anything else.

So you can get atheists to agree that "something" caused the universe to come into being, but that still doesn't do anything to support your belief in God. Heck, some people believe it was aliens. SOMETHING had to cause it, right? Do you really think that the people who believe that are logical and scientific? What makes you think atheists will believe any different about your beliefs? It is not like atheists haven't thought about what started the universe thousands and thousands of times throughout history. This is not a new or efficient argument.

Answer 3

I'm not really sure what you are getting at here.

Yes, science accepts cause and effect and yes, not all causal relationships are completely understood.

But we actually have an excellent picture of how the universe came into being (cause and effect) with very few gaps indeed.

One of the things this picture tells us is that the laws of physics cannot be traced through the singularity that marked the start of the universe. This means that nothing at all - nothing physical nor a god nor anything you could even imagine in your wildest fit of science fiction delusion - can cross that singularity boundary. It is a total barrier to information.

Hence we regard time to have started with the big bang - the universe is measurably not eternal, and nor is time itself.

So scientifically we know that the chances of their being a god are no better than 1 in 10^34 (thats 1 with 34 zeros after it) - a measure of the fundamental uncertainty of the universe - and that if god exists "before" the universe he cannot exist in it or in anyway influence it.

If you want you can even do the math to prove all this to yourself - read "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose before making more extravagent claims.

Answer 4

"In other words, science is all about *causes*.
So, isn't it logical that *someone*, *something*, caused the universe to come into being? "

This is not a logical argument. You claim that science is "all about causes" and then base your next assertion on that claim. You have no proof at all that "science is all about causes"

You can either believe in a higher power or not, the choice is yours. It's a leap of faith that's the basis of religion. If you have to prove it scientifically, then maybe you don't have that faith? Using pseudo-science to try to 'trick' the ignorant into sharing your belief is not uncommon.

Answer 5

You take much time to say nothing that really makes sense. Why bother? You cannot convince me of anything with such illogic. Buddha said metaphysics in a waste of time, and many scientistrs agree, so do not put words in their mouths. Science is not "all about causes". That is a branch of philosophy called metaphysics, and as I said, many say it is worthless. Scientists seek "how", not "why', so you show a gross misundertanding here. In your last paragraph, the answer is "only no", not "only 'yes'" at all. Why not study science and philosophy with an open mind and stop trying to twist them to support your groundless beliefs that have no support at all in real science, but only in your brand of twisted science and pseudo-science? No, it is not at all logical that someone caused the universe. True scientists accept whatever the evidence supports, while you are trying to make us see only dubious items that seem to support your groundless beliefs. You form beliefs before you look at any evidence and refuse to admit there is no evidence at all to support your premature beliefs.

Answer 6

well no, all of the things you asked in the first paragraph are explainable with science, and lets not forget, just because scientists havent discovered everything there is yet doesnt mean that "god" did it. for example if god creats every person, why the hell would he creat hitler and such, to test us to see if we believe in him.

as for the big bang, it is actually the most likely explination for life on earth, its alot more likely than a big bearded man creating it in seven day, the earth has taken billions of years to come to the point it is now, and there is plenty of evidence! your completely wrong science's argument is growing stronger eveyday with more and more evidence being revailed!

i love the way someone has disagreed with salient2's answer when it is clearly the best here! its probably just some christian unable to understand the truth, retard!

also if everything had a cause, what caused god, i would have liked to see god being born from himself, that would be funny!

Answer 7

Dear friend. I know what you mean. Cause leads to effect. Everything should have a cause. But this is limited thinking. Not everything has a cause. The scientists missed this part. If everything had a cause what caused the first thing ? Good try friend .

Answer 8

Terry Pratchett answered your question quite simply: "the best scientific answer for the existence of the universe is this, In the beginning there was nothing which exploded"

Hope this helps

Answer 9

After watching a show on the Hubble telescope this weekend, I wonder if there IS a beginning at all. Why does there have to be a beginning?

Answer 10

You used a lot of words hon.

Ok, if everything needs a cause "what caused god?"

If you can imagine an uncaused god, you can imagine an uncaused universe.