Hahaha Atty akala ko ba mag kakampi tayo?
Magkakampi nga... Wink-wink lang naman ang discussion na ito...
========================================
Allow me restate 3 premises that would be the basis of my point:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
We can accept that #1 is true on earth. We can even accept that it's true within our solar system. Let's be generous and say it's true within our entire galaxy.
But to say that it's true within the entire universe, that's stretching it. There's no way to observe and verify that on a planet outside the Milky Way galaxy, things can only exist with a cause.
In #2 & 3, you're applying it to the entire universe and beyond --- even before the universe existed. There's no way to observe and verify that the universe did not exist spontaneoulsy without a cause, so you're just speculating. How do we know that the rules inside the existing universe apply to time and space that existed even before the Big Bang?
Therefore, #3 is without proper basis.
But even if we agree that the beginning of the universe had a cause, the problem will be identifying what that cause might be.
The end result --- yes, there was a cause, but we presently don't know what the cause was. We might know someday, but not yet.
This first cause must be….Uncaused. Because as in Kalam’s argument there no actual infinite series of causes. There simply has to be a first cause which has not been caused otherwise it would an infinite question of “who caused the cause”…..which was dismissed already.
Why restrict it to 2 alternatives --- (a) first cause and (b) infinite regress of causes?
Why not allow a third alternative --- "No cause" --- meaning that the universe came about by spontaneous generation?
Next this first cause had to be eternal, being with no cause then it had no beginning. It must also be outside space and time.
This first cause must also be non-physical since anything physical must have a cause.
This first cause must be powerful and personal since it caused the existence of the universe and its laws and order….only personal being can make choices.
Your bias is showing.
We don't know what the cause is, because it's not possible to confirm and verify exactly what that cause was. Yet you prefer to presume that the cause was a supernatural being.
Why? Because you are retrofitting the argument to suit your religious beliefs.
=========================================
The way I see it, the cosmological argument (cause-and-effect) is still not convincing because it requires huge assumptions if it is applied to the beginning of the universe.
Personally, I think the ID (Intelligent Design) proponents are using the best approach.
They don't know the origins of the universe. They're just saying that certain features of the known universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Who is the Intelligent Designer? They don't know. Is it God? They don't know. Could it be God? Maybe.
