Name: VIPPER 2013-02-03 10:48
There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe:
1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused
The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.
It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.
Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.
It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.
Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.
I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who agues for the eternal existence of God?
1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused
The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.
It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.
Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.
It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.
Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.
I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who agues for the eternal existence of God?