Rejecting The Cosmological Argument

[Guest _mike]

The law of causality is often used by theists to support the creation of the universe by God. A good way to reject this argument is by presenting examples of things that do not necessarily need a cause for existing the way they do. Anyone know of such examples?

[Ouroboros]

One problem with the argument is that quantum events aren't caused, they're locally deterministic because of probability, but they're not contingent to a cause.

 

The second argument is that "Free Will", defined by Christianity, is self-caused, so every event in the universe that is caused by your actions of free will are not contingent either.

 

Both these examples show that the first premise of the cosmological argument must be wrong, or the person has to show a reason to explain away quantum mechanics and free will.

 

-edit-

 

Oh, and I forgot the 3rd reason: miracles or any event of supernatural kind (visions of angels etc). "Something natural" is referred to something that falls in the normal pattern and behavior of nature, basically what is contingent in the universe, and supernatural is by definition something that is not. So if miracles do exist, then the first premise is wrong.

 

We could also rewrite the first premise, and make it conditionally by adding: all is contingent, except free will, miracles, Jesus resurrection and Quantum Mechanics. But then of course, who wants to approve this premise by accepting a faith statement even before the proof has been done?

[Kuroikaze]

Another thing to bring up.

 

The Christian is just placing the self causation back one more step. If God can be self existent then perhaps the universe is self existent without a god. There is no logical reason to say that the universe MUST have a creator, but God certainly DOESN'T need one.