When I last wrote about the universe, I did say that it is a sufficient cause and need not be caused, our friend of the Canaanite massacre fame has written a post arguing that the universe need a cause.
First he starts with a bad set of arguments for which he offers no evidence in support of. He tells us
Every effect has a cause
The universe is an effect
The universe needs a cause.
How he gets to the second premise I don’t know. The first premise has also been shown to be false since it has been observed at the quantum level and even in radioactivity that there are effects that do not require a cause. Since the first and second premise are not factually correct, we need not go to the third premise or conclusion whichever you prefer!
The universe is indeed an effect, and therefore cannot be uncaused. It cannot have caused its own existence, for it would have had to have existed before itself in order to cause itself, which is absurd.
Why would an always existing universe be absurd? How does positing god as creator of cause and effect become less absurd? Still the fellow doesn’t give us any reason why we should think the universe as an effect and not a sufficient cause. In the contrary I offer two arguments, one that matter, whatever it is, can’t be created or destroyed and the universe is all matter it couldn’t have been created; two there is no evidence so far as we know when there was a break in the cause-effect chain such that if god is to be posited as starting the effect, universe, he needed to have been caused by something outside itself ad infinitum.
The universe is limited, for we see the evidences of limitation all around us……stars die, resources get used up.
In all these death matter ain’t lost. There is a transformation from solid to gas to heat but then the total sum remains zero. While still here, if the stars collapse naturally into themselves, why would a creator be needed at their formation, that is, if stellar collapse doesn’t require a divine destroyer why should we posit a divine creator at its beginning?
God is not an effect, and therefore does not need a cause.
We are not given any reason why this should be true and why the same can’t be said for the universe.
The syllogism above is simple, but no more simple than looking at nature and coming to the conclusion that there must be a God, for nature could not have come about by itself.
Why does one need to posit that a god is involved in nature?
I honestly believe that people have to work a long time to convince themselves that God does not exist.
Yes you are right, you have believed so much falsehood that it would be a Herculean task to convince you of the lack of existence of gods.
As they used to say in the South, some people have “too much education and not enough sense.”
As we say on this blog, the above statement is representative of most theists!
And for entertainment and education here is Lawrence Krauss’ A universe from nothing