The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[KCfromNC]

An impersonal "force" whatever this might be, I do not know, is not capable of causing or creating anything.

I don't see this. Lots of events are caused by impersonal forces. It rained here yesterday - no god of thunder involved, just natural unthinking processes causing a thunderstorm.

Unless you're arguing for the entire universe being conscious, I think you should reconsider this approach.

 

[KCfromNC]

I saw this and decided that it was expedient for me to write on it before I retire for the day.

This idea is being used by some physicists to cast doubt on the veracity of the Law of Causality. But as it shall be shown, these attempts are completely unfounded, but not only that, they are intentionally misleading and border on pop-metaphysics.

Contemporary philosopher Quentin Smith actually used this as an argument against holding that the Law of Causality was applicable to the Big Bang model.

However the reason this argument fails is that the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to this principle:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

As Smith himself admits, these considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (p. 50).

Sure, if you hand-wave away every example of everything coming into existence as a change of state there will be no examples of uncaused events. But in doing so, you've also eliminated any evidence of created objects being caused as well - everything we thought was coming into being with a definite cause is actually just a change in state as well.

So now you've removed your only support for your initial premise. We don't observe anything actually being created, just things changing state. You have no observations left to support your idea that everything that begins to exist, has a cause, and the entire argument falls apart.

 

[Elioenai26]

Doesn´t follow.

Doesn´t follow. It just needs to be powerful enough to create a universe.

Out of nothing??? Have you forgotten all about your premises?

I fail to see how you managed to arrive at the conclusion that this creation must have been a purposeful act, and that the universe as it is was the intended goal. Thus, unless I have missed anything, this is not a conclusion but the very - so far - unsupported premise.

At which point in your deduction did you establish that the creation of the universe must have been a choice?

Furthermore: "to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe" - have you forgotten how often you have appealed here to the axiom "something can not come from nothing" and that "a state of nothingness" is therefore an impossibility?

As we have established, the universe which is all material reality including time, space, and matter, came into existence at a definite point in the past.

If time, space, and matter came into existence at this point, then there was no time, space, or matter in existence before this point.

Therefore, something had to exist prior to the Big Bang that was capable of bringing the universe into existence.

This Cause is far from nothing my friend but on the contrary it by necessity is the greatest conceivable being.

Why? Because this Cause caused the universe to be.

What is the universe?

All space, all time, and all matter.

Now what attributes would this Cause have to possess to be able to cause the universe to be in accordance with the criteria we have established?

Could it be something material? No! Why? Because the universe is all matter. Matter could not have existed before the Big Bang. Science proves this, and it would be illogical to maintain that it could. Why? Because if you say that something material created the universe, then you are saying that all matter came into existence by matter! Matter cannot bring all matter into existence for it would have had to exist before all matter!

Now as Einstein confirmed, space time and matter are co-relative or interdependent, meaning they cannot be divorced from each other.

So if matter could not create all matter, neither could it create all space or all time.

Therefore the Cause the very least, must be immaterial.

I will let you ponder over it. Logic and reason can tell us what some of these other attributes must be.

 

[Elioenai26]

You see, a lot of what has been posted is simply eyewash. A lot of ink has been spilled to expound on sometimes more sometimes less relevant things. The real pertinent issues are left unexplained.

What the heck is immaterial?
Where does non-intelligence end and intelligence begin?
What does it even mean for an immaterial entity to be intelligent?
Is it possible that such an entity creates stuff?
From nothing?
What exactly is personal?
And so on, and so forth.

This is actually a very good question.

The argument from cosmology states that the universe has a cause.

This has been established through science and philosophical argument.

Now, the point of this argument is to cause us to ask ourselves as inquisitive people are supposed to do:

What could this cause be? This is the real aim of the evidence. What does logic, reason, and rationality say should be the attributes of something that could cause the universe to be?

We are not required to know how an immaterial entity could create a material universe, but the evidence does require us to maintain that it did.

With regards to (2).

I think we can determine where intellignece ends and non-intelligence begins by simply looking at the effects of the entity in question.

I will use a rock and a watch as a simple example.

What are the effects of a rock? In other words, what does a rock do in and of itself? It does nothing. What is the immediate cause of rock formation? It is natural forces of compression of elements in nature. Are these natural forces intelligent? No. Elements, and pressure are not intelligent. They do not make decisions, they do not cause things to transform from random elements into designed entities with specified complexity and so on and so forth. Therefore a rock, is not intelligent. In other words it does not have a mind.


What does a watch do? It tells us what time it is. What is telling time? It is a specific duration or length of time, in our case, 60 seconds making a mintute and so on and so forth. We see that a watch has a purpose.

What caused the watch to be? Random natural forces and elements? No.
A person caused the watch to be. An intelligent being with a mind, caused the watch to be. This person or persons, designed the watch, machined the intricate parts, assembled them together, supplied power to power it and voila, an intelligently designed material object!

Intelligence is indicitive of a mind. A mind is always indicitive of a personal being with volition (will), feeling (emotion), etc. etc.

There are plenty of issues that would need to be addressed in great detail. Instead there is paragraph after paragraph about causes, about excluded middles, and about whatnot.

These paragraphs are important for establishing a sound base from which to work, although most people do not need to know these ideas and concepts in detail to make accurate judgments about the world in which they live.

What you have posted is as if somebody were to make an argument for unicorns, and, this is the clincher, expouned long and broadly on the morphology, the feeding habits, the history and evolution of the horse. Maybe about how to ride them. The really important issues, the things that distinguish horses from unicorns, like the horn or the clover-shaped hooves, are not really argued for but rather introduced by sleight-of-hand trickery. Lastly, a connection to legends, stories and beliefs about unicorns is being made.

In other words there is a lot of talk. A lot of talk that is intended to give the appearance of having something to say. But all in all it is pretty weak and meager.

I am actually ecstatic that you have used this example of the unicorn!

I shall briefly take the time to expound on why your unicorn analogy is, at best, completely groundless and rather pointless.

What you have stated is that making an argument for God using the methods in the apologia, is nothing different than making an argument for the existence of a unicorn. You in a sense state that if one wanted to they could sit down and develop an argument with a lot of semantical gymnastics and sleight of hand trickery slide old unicorn into the mix.

This position contains a number of flaws, but for time sake I shall elaborate on four of them.

1. Sound reasoning - consistently followed - infers that an ultimate, uncaused, eternal, all powerful being must exist to make sense of the available data from science, philosophy, and other disciplines with regards to the cause of the universe. Sound reasoning and logic in no way make the same inference about a unicorn.

2. There is no reason to assume that a unicorn (if it exists) would possess the attributes akin to those of this Uncaused Cause which is required to accurately account for the existence of the universe.

3. Nothing that is known about the physical world infers that reality as we know it is the product of a unicorn. I.e., the universe and reality as we know it does not seem to have been the product of a finite, mysterious horse like creature with a horn on it's head that romps and runs through mystical forests.

4. The vast, well ordered universe which operates according to consistent observable principles which contains complex life forms all of which contain specified and irreducible complexity, human consciousness - all of these and more do argue for the existence of God. The universe and reality in no way appears to argue for a unicorn as it's cause. Our knowledge of the world around us does argue for the existence of an entity capable of creating the universe as we know it.

So you see my friend, this not only can apply to unicorns, but to any other mythological creature that your imagination may want to dream of.
Mr. Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Abominable Snowman, Santa Claus, whoever you like can be plugged into the unicorns place and none of them will be sufficient to bear the burden of the criteria demanded by the available evidence.

(Now of course I already know that apologists never have really tackled the important issues and that they are not going to address them either, and so can draw my own conclusion from that. )

What might these important issues be?

 

[Beechwell]

If time, space, and matter came into existence at this point, then there was no time, space, or matter in existence before this point.

Therefore, something had to exist prior to the Big Bang that was capable of bringing the universe into existence.

Blind post here: If time came into existance with the Big Bang, then there is no "before that point". I see this mistake quite often, but if you are asserting that time began a finite time ago, then you cannot speak of things "before" that point. Then there is no point in time when the universe didn't exist. In this way the universe is both eternal and around 14-15 billion year old.

This of course makes it very hard to talk about causalities at the beginning of time. Causality as we understand it is always tied to time. How would you distinguish cause and effect out of time?

 

[Elioenai26]

No, even if what you say is true you've just shown that current objections to knowledge about god aren't conclusive. You've done nothing to show that this knowledge exists and can be found.



You're putting the cart before the horse. Before you can go looking for evidence of something, you first need a concrete definition of that something which includes specific descriptions of what we'd expect to find and not find if that object were real.



Except for all the cases where it isn't, of course.



How do you use an argument firmly based in observation and conclude that [/font][/size]an argument need not be empirically verifiable to be true beyond a reasonable doubt?



ad hominem - specifically poisoning the well.



Yep - people worry more about stuff which is real. Or has real effects :

[/font]

Seems like someone's upset that reality doesn't line up with their religious beliefs.

Due to time constraints and the desire to answer every thoughtful and sincere question asked of me with regards to the apologia, I am only going to be able to elaborate and answer questions regarding to the apologia.

I am not going to be able to address many of the comments or opinions that people write. I apologize for this.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why would I reply to specifics when the problem is with the foundation. If you were to build a brick house and built a wood house instead I'm not going to discuss your choice of trim color. I'm going to tell you the house is made of the wrong material. I am also not going to do your work for you and make the foundation of a brick house, you have to do that yourself if you want me to live in your house.

What specifically is wrong with the apologia?

 

[Elioenai26]

No, it is not.

quatona has stated the issues more eloquently than myself, so I will leave you to respond to his posts.

As you have yet to establish the possibility of deities, I see no point in pursuing this further.

That the universe is eternal is not incompatible with the prevailing cosmological model. Now, where do you get the idea that if the universe is eternal, that the uranium we find on Earth today would be infinitely old?

If the universe were eternal, there would be no radioactive uranium, we would have only lead in it's stead. I had to do it, sorry!

That is the whole point. Radioactive uranium over time decays and becomes lead. We have radioactive uranium, therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Notice, here that this argument is just one of many sub arguments which fall under the umbrella of the cosmos apologia. One would not use it as a primary argument although it is nontheless true.

 

[Elioenai26]

Or mistaken. That may only be my keys in my pocket.

Is my statement true or false?

The statement being true or false depends on what we can discover and investigate about the claim. As it is now, I have no evidence to make a judgment on, nothing to corroborate your claim. So I have to withold my judgment.

But this much is certain, either what you say is in your pocket, or it is not.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That is the whole point. Radioactive uranium over time decays and becomes lead. We have radioactive uranium, therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Sigh...

Uranium is continually created in the universe.

 

[Davian]

If the universe were eternal, there would be no radioactive uranium, we would have only lead in it's stead. I had to do it, sorry!

That is the whole point. Radioactive uranium over time decays and becomes lead. We have radioactive uranium, therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Notice, here that this argument is just one of many sub arguments which fall under the umbrella of the cosmos apologia. One would not use it as a primary argument although it is nontheless true.

One more time.

No, the universe could be eternal, with the big bang being only the beginning of the current instantiation of our cosmos. Here, the cosmos is what is inside of the universe. And, this allows for uranium in what could be an eternal universe.

 

[Elioenai26]

1. I am simply not taking your (or anyone´s) word for it that it is undeniable and inescapable.
I am asking for the reasoning that has lead to this premise.

2. I do see how it is - in the scientific realm - based on the observation that physical effects must have physical causes. I am, however, not seeing how you can simply take this premise from the context in which science postulates it and generalize from it on the "supernatural" realm that you are trying to establish as existing.
If you want to discuss within the scientific context, fine. This context is about the physical world as observed within this universe. E.g. the claim that someone thought an object into existence, this wouldn´t be a "cause" as defined in this context.

You say on one hand that the Law of Causality cannot be seen as undeniable and then several sentences later you maintain that Science postulates or presupposes the Law of Causality!

Which is it?

And because "skeptic David Hume" says this it is therefore undeniable and indispensible?

I never said that it was either undeniable or indispensible because David Hume maintained that it was undeniable. I used him as an example to prove that even he, being a skeptic, certainly was not skeptical about the Law of Causality!

Well, science doesn´t deal with non-physical stuff. Therefore, when science uses the term "cause" it means "physical causes". You may regret this, but if you are appealing to science you have to be consistent.

Science my friend, is a search for causes. If the scientific evidence leads us to a cause for the universe that is beyond the physical, which it does, then science has fulfilled it's purpose and it is time to take up the other appropriate disciplines at our disposal to come to a better understanding of reality.

Science is not omnipotent or omniscient. If you maintain that it is, you espouse scientism, not science. In other words, if you espouse that science is the only way to know anything about reality, you are doing so on faith, not reason, or logic. For if you maintain that science is the only way to know anything about reality, you have a self-contradicting position on your hands. For the statement you just made cannot be verified scientifically!

They would be out of job if they postulated a non-physical "cause" for a physical effect. That´s science.

Not if the evidence leads them to that conclusion, which it does!

You seem to be forgetting that there are many notable scientists who are theists quatona, and I assure you, they still have their jobs. I can provide a list of nobel winning theists if you would like.

 

[Davian]

The statement being true or false depends on what we can discover and investigate about the claim. As it is now, I have no evidence to make a judgment on, nothing to corroborate your claim. So I have to withold my judgment.

In post #21, you maintained that the opposite of true is false.

If you do not think my statement is true, then you must think it false.

Or are you an agnostic?

 

[Elioenai26]

Why must it be "greater than", and in what sense of "greater"?

The Cause of the universe must be immaterial, because all matter came into existence at the Big Bang.

The Cause must be timeless, becasue all time came into existence at the Big Bang.

The Cause must be nonspatial, because all space came into existence at the Big Bang.

A principle which your argument violates.

How does the cosmological argument violate the Principle of Uniformity?

Evidence for a beginning is evidence for a beginning, not evidence for an intelligent entity that brought into effect that beginning through its own will.

This universe requires a cause. What could that cause be? See above.

You are taking a law that finds application to everything we see within the natural world and saying that it also finds application outside the natural world. There is no warrant for that inference.

All the Law of Causality tells us is to follow the evidence, which we have established demands that the universe have a cause for it's existence.

The Law of Causality is applied to the universe which is the natural universe. All of material reality, natural reality, however you want to say it, has a cause. This is where the Law of Causality stops. Notice I have not used the Law of Causality to directly state: "God created the universe". I have no where said that nor is this what the cosmological argument states.

It is the evidence that causes us to infer that an Uncaused Cause created the universe, not the Law of Causality itself.

The Law demands that we seek a cause for the universe, the Law does not say that an Uncaused Cause created the universe.

This is a common misconception I have noticed here.

And as quatona noted earlier:

we get a very particular meaning of "beginning", since nowhere in this universe have we ever observed something "beginning" in the strict sense of the word. All we observe is permanent transformation of matter. So when we describe our observations as "the beginning of existence" we are actually using "beginning" in the meaning of "transformation".
​

With regards to this, I shall simply say that the phase: "permanent transformation" is an oxymoron, it is contradictory.
Something that is permanent is not transforming. Transforming means changing.

I believe what he means to say is that matter is neither added to nor subtracted from the universe. It only changes form. The first Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Entropy are spoken of here.

He also, without grounds, reason, or evidence, changes the word "beginning" to "transformation".

The whole idea is to actually say that there was matter before the Big Bang and it just "transformed" into something else "somehow"!!!

Not only does Einstein's theory of General Relativity debunk this presumptuous, ungrounded, baseless pop-metaphysical assertion, but it was Einstein himself who realized the implications of his research and later stated that it "irritated" him. He went so far as to deliberately introduce a cosmological constant into his equations to render his calculations to require the universe to be static (eternal) when he knew that it was'nt.

Of course we know that this shameful and dishonest scheme was found out several years later, and since then, scientific research has only shown to corroborate his initial calculations which require that the universe had a definite beginning in the distant past. This beginning was the beginning of ALL time, ALL space, and ALL matter.
​

If you have a system, where each part has the property of being a triangle, should you infer that the system (which is the sum of all the triangles) must itself be a triangle?

If you have 4 equilateral triangles and put them together you get a triangle. But I am not sure in what way or what point you are trying to allude to in this question. Maybe if you could restate it please.

All the material things that you mention, from houses to galaxies, owe their existence to material events. You want to argue that the universe as a whole has a non-material cause.

It can't have a material cause. For the simple fact that ALL matter came into existence at the Big Bang. This is so simple that one can make it difficult by not accepting the evidence as it is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Cause of the universe must be immaterial, because all matter came into existence at the Big Bang.

The Cause must be timeless, becasue all time came into existence at the Big Bang.

The Cause must be nonspatial, because all space came into existence at the Big Bang.

Well, that just makes your argument even more problematic. If time, space and matter all came into existence at the Big Bang, then the word "cause", which we use when we speak of the interaction of matter in time and space, really finds no application in the description of something that is without matter, timeless and spaceless. If you believe that time, space and matter all came into the existence at the Big Bang, then it wouldn't be a great leap to suggest that causality only became a useful concept from that moment on.

This is an important point to emphasise as I believe it undermines your entire argument. We observe causal relations between matter in space and time. You want to make an inferential leap to say that these relations can carry on existing without any matter to operate on, in an area that is spaceless (how is it even an area then?) and at a time that is timeless. You are taking the concept so far out of the context in which it is useful that it no longer describes anything at all. The concept of causality is ordinarily used to describe something happening, somewhere and in some time. You are saying that the concept can also describe nothing happening (immaterial), nowhere (spaceless) and in no time (timeless). In effect you are saying that this "uncaused cause", that you call God, is really nothing, nowhere and in no time. You have turned God into nothingness and bizarrely come to argue that nothing (the immaterial) can create everything (the material world in space-time).

How does the cosmological argument violate the Principle of Uniformity?

You articulated the principle as "causes in the past were like the causes that we observe today." Your argument, however, violates this principle because you are claiming that one cause in the past is radically unlike any of the causes we observe today -- it is supernatural, immaterial, nowhere in space, and timeless, but somehow it remains causally efficacious.

With regards to this, I shall simply say that the phase: "permanent transformation" is an oxymoron, it is contradictory.
Something that is permanent is not transforming. Transforming means changing.

I believe what he means to say is that matter is neither added to nor subtracted from the universe. It only changes form. The first Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Entropy are spoken of here.

He also, without grounds, reason, or evidence, changes the word "beginning" to "transformation".

The whole idea is to actually say that there was matter before the Big Bang and it just "transformed" into something else "somehow"!!!

Not only does Einstein's theory of General Relativity debunk this presumptuous, ungrounded, baseless pop-metaphysical assertion, but it was Einstein himself who realized the implications of his research and later stated that it "irritated" him. He went so far as to deliberately introduce a cosmological constant into his equations to render his calculations to require the universe to be static (eternal) when he knew that it was'nt.

Of course we know that this shameful and dishonest scheme was found out several years later, and since then, scientific research has only shown to corroborate his initial calculations which require that the universe had a definite beginning in the distant past. This beginning was the beginning of ALL time, ALL space, and ALL matter.

I have highlighted that last sentence because I feel it is the most important, for the same reason mentioned above. The word "cause" makes no sense unless it is used to describe matter, in time and space. You want to take the word out of this context to describe something that is immaterial, nowhere and no when -- in other words, nothing.

If you have 4 equilateral triangles and put them together you get a triangle. But I am not sure in what way or what point you are trying to allude to in this question. Maybe if you could restate it please.

Not necessarily. If each part is a triangle, then the system as a whole need not be a triangle.

It can't have a material cause. For the simple fact that ALL matter came into existence at the Big Bang. This is so simple that one can make it difficult by not accepting the evidence as it is.

Then that is tantamount to saying that nothing caused everything. If something is not material, then what is it? It is nothing.

 

[quatona]

You say on one hand that the Law of Causality cannot be seen as undeniable and then several sentences later you maintain that Science postulates or presupposes the Law of Causality!

Which is it?

Well, even on rereading what you quoted me upon I can´t seem to detect either of the statements you claim I made.

I never said that it was either undeniable or indispensible because David Hume maintained that it was undeniable. I used him as an example to prove that even he, being a skeptic, certainly was not skeptical about the Law of Causality!

Well, then please humour me with your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that the "Law of Causation" (in your version as "everything that has a beginning must have a cause") is indispensible and undeniable. Actually, I haven´t even found this version in any scientific context - which is not surprising since science (being concerned with the stuff within the universe) doesn´t deal with "beginnings", in the first place. It deals with transformations of that which is. Thus, it would be highly surprising to find an axiom at the very core of science that is circled around events that have never been observed in the universe (and thus aren´t even subject to science), in the first place.

Science my friend, is a search for causes.

Indeed, but causes (as defined by science) have to meet certain criteria in order to acknowledged as causes (namely, they must be physical).
Furthermore, science is not about simply claiming causalities, it´s about explaining the processes by which A causes B. Having found evidence for this explanation of the processes is actually the very prerequisite for concluding that A causes B.
E.g. the claim of causality in "My thoughts have caused the wheather change" won´t be accepted by science, even if science couldn´t manage find a cause for the weather change that meets scientific criteria.

If the scientific evidence leads us to a cause for the universe that is beyond the physical, which it does, then science has fulfilled it's purpose and it is time to take up the other appropriate disciplines at our disposal to come to a better understanding of reality.

You are invited to present this "scientific evidence" - but please don´t mistake philosophical assumptions for "scientific evidence".
Last time I checked there was no such scientific evidence. All there was was something science couldn´t explain, and some philosophers who tried to fill this gap with whatever euphemism for "I don´t know".

Science is not omnipotent or omniscient. If you maintain that it is, you espouse scientism, not science. In other words, if you espouse that science is the only way to know anything about reality, you are doing so on faith, not reason, or logic. For if you maintain that science is the only way to know anything about reality, you have a self-contradicting position on your hands. For the statement you just made cannot be verified scientifically!

Spare me the strawmen, please.
It was you who claimed to work from scientific premises - so don´t blame me when I point out that you are using them in an unscientific way.

Not if the evidence leads them to that conclusion, which it does!

Well, I have told you before: You are highly invited to present this "scientific evidence", so that we can put it to scientific scrutinity. You may be a nice guy and all, but nonetheless I hope you´ll understand that I don´t take your word for it.

You seem to be forgetting that there are many notable scientists who are theists quatona, and I assure you, they still have their jobs. I can provide a list of nobel winning theists if you would like.

Rest assured I have never forgotten about it. However, you seem to forget that my purpose in responding to your "apologia" is not to disprove whatever god (or that metaphysical personal beliefs are irreconcilable with scientific work) - it is to check whether your reasoning is sound. The fact that your entire argument is a trainwreck doesn´t prove or disprove anything beyond this fact. I am fully aware of that.

Anyway, as far as I am informed, no scientist has ever received the Nobel prize (or any other remarkable scientific honour) for replacing an explanation by the GodOfTheGaps (or for any metaphysical idea whatsoever, for that matter).
And the vast majority of the scientists who happen to be theist thankfully have the integrity and intellectual honesty to abstain from pretending that their metaphysical beliefs are the result of "scientific evidence".

 

[quatona]

Elioenai, one of the most blatant and fundamental flaws in your line of reasoning is unresolved, and I´d urgently request you to do something about it if you want us to look further into the rest of it.
Here it is:
You have to make up your mind whether an explanation concerning the universe must conform with the laws observed within the universe, or whether this is not a requirement for the explanation.
So far you change the horses midstream:
You start by excluding certain explanations for the reason that they violate the laws observed within the universe.
When (after long winded portions of irrelevance) you present your explanation you suddenly don´t have a problem with the fact that your explanation violates those laws just like all the other explanations do.

It´s like when you have to employ a secretary, there are 5 persons who apply. You interview the first four of them, and send them home because they have no high school diploma. The fifth person doesn´t have an high school diploma, but now you say "Who says a secretary needs a high school diploma? And, besides, there´s no other person left. So I´ll take him."
Now, when it´s about employing people, your inconsistency is your own business and no skin of my nose.
However in logic it´s fatal.

Now, pick one of the options and apply it consistently. The bad news is: You won´t end up with a proof (because either premise can not be substantiated), the good news is: I can take it seriously.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't see this. Lots of events are caused by impersonal forces. It rained here yesterday - no god of thunder involved, just natural unthinking processes causing a thunderstorm.

Unless you're arguing for the entire universe being conscious, I think you should reconsider this approach.

Interestingly enough, common sense tells us that the Cause of the universe must be personal not impersonal.

Why?

Because the universe contains personal beings, i.e you, me, and approximately six billion other personal beings. Personal beings are beings which possess, among other things, mind will and emotion.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure, if you hand-wave away every example of everything coming into existence as a change of state there will be no examples of uncaused events. But in doing so, you've also eliminated any evidence of created objects being caused as well - everything we thought was coming into being with a definite cause is actually just a change in state as well.

So now you've removed your only support for your initial premise. We don't observe anything actually being created, just things changing state. You have no observations left to support your idea that everything that begins to exist, has a cause, and the entire argument falls apart.

The Big Bang my friend, was not a change of state at all! There was nothing in existence to be changed into prior to the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is not the result of something changing from one form into something else. For all that is, came into existence simultaneously at the Big Bang.

The Law of Causality tells us that because the universe began to exist, then it has a cause.

The problem many people have in fully appreciating what this means is that they do not understand that before this point of creation, NO matter, NO time, NO space existed. There was nothing natural in existence prior to this point.

So to speak of something changing into something from something in existence or transforming from one form to another to try and refute the Law of Causality is not even logical.

The only way to disprove the Law of Causality is to show that something could come into existence uncaused, and this is not only impossible to prove, but it is irrational, illogical, and goes contrary to everything we know intuitively about reality.

 

[Gadarene]

Interestingly enough, common sense tells us that the Cause of the universe must be personal not impersonal.

Why?

Because the universe contains personal beings, i.e you, me, and approximately six billion other personal beings. Personal beings are beings which possess, among other things, mind will and emotion.

Non-sequitur. Presumes dualism at the very least, which is evidence-free.