setsunatenshi said:
interesting why you think you would make it "easy" for me by stating your own argument, but ok I'll humor you this time: Whatever begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause.
I'm assuming this is your argument since you didn't want to state it for some weird reason (perhaps to move goalposts later on).
1st premise stating that whatever begins to exist has a cause is not even true to the best of our knowledge.
without even going to quantum physics where observations show particles popping into existence from non existence, you would have no basis to support the first claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
another premise that needs some backing is the one claiming the universe began to exist. what can you show me to support that claim? as far as we know time is a property of the universe, if there was no time outside the universe, then by necessity the universe always was. it never "began to exist"
is it enough for now?
better state your own argument because this one is dead already |
Then prepare yourself because I'm a necromancer ;)
Whatever exists has a cause is very much true. Everything is at least tracable back to the ultimate contingent event that is the big bang.
Secondly, virtual particles are fluctuations of particles. They suddenly and temporarily adopt properties they shouldn't really have, but they do not "pop into existence from nothingness" That would contradict the principle of the conservation of mass.
One of my earlier points exactly. If there was not time before the universe, then our "0 hour" of time is our point of existance in the universe. It's a natural numbers row which has a ver nice, clear and defined beginning.
