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).
The below is a response to Beechwell who argued the same thing as you have here. I shall refer you to it.
**This is often espoused as a refutation of the cosmological argument but is faulty and ungrounded for several reasons:
1. You must provide a good argument with evidence that proves your assertion that the causal principle
only operates between temporally related entities.
In other words, you have the awesome burden of proof in proving that that causes and effects
must always be related by a relation of temporal priority. But I will save you from the leg work, this cannot be proven.
2. Secondly, even if it were possible for you to provide a good argument that the causal principle only operates between temporally related entities, there is nothing incoherent or contradictory with maintaining that the very moment God created the universe (time, space, and matter) was the
exact same moment that time began! The cause (God) and the effect (the universe i.e. all time, all space, and all matter)
were simultaneously temporally related.
In fact, there is no other logical way that it could happen. An illustration may help to explain this simple premise.
A heavy ball, say, a bowling ball, is placed on a pillow or a cushion. The exact moment that the ball (cause) is placed on the cushion, a depression (effect) is made in the cushion. This happened simultaneously.
This conclusion is warranted by reason and logic. It would be
illogical and
irrational to say that somehow the ball actually did not cause the depression at the
exact moment that it was placed on the cushion.
Therefore, we have every reason to believe that the Cause (God) and the effect (the universe i.e
time, space, and matter) are related temporally in that the Cause effected the effect
simultaneously.**
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.
The Principle of Uniformity is used when seeking to understand an occurance that is not repeatable, i.e. a crime. Forensic scientists often utilize this principle when seeking to discover the perpetrator of a crime.
The Big Bang was a non-repatable phenomenon and we were not there when it happened, but we can infer with accuracy what it's cause must have been by knowing that things today do not come into existence uncaused. We can look at the effect which is the universe and make many well informed inferences as to what could have caused this occurance.
Therefore the Principle of Uniformity is one means in which we come to understand what this Causal entity must have been.
Not necessarily. If each part is a triangle, then the system as a whole need not be a triangle.
I thank you for the picture, but I do not see how geometric shapes are pertinent to this discussion.
Then that is tantamount to saying that nothing caused everything. If something is not material, then what is it? It is nothing.
When you use the word "nothing" you are using it according to a naturalistic understanding of the word. You are saying that if something is immaterial, then it is nothing. However this is clearly false, for example:
1. The ideas that you had in your mind which caused you to type what you did in this post is not a material entity, but I dare say you would not maintain that your ideas were "no-thing". They are very much something, they are ideas!
2. Your mind is not a material entity, but I dare say you would not maintain that your mind is "no-thing", it is something!. It is your mind!
3. The Law of Gravity is not a material entity, it nontheless is a very real something: It is an undeniable, unbreakable law which, if you try to disprove by jumping off of a sky scraper, you will not end up breaking the Law of Gravity, but yourself, thereby proving the law really is something!
So we see from the above that it is very logical, reasonable, and in fact
necessary we understand that many things are not made of matter, but are nontheless real in the sense that they exist and are effectual.
Therefore, an immaterial being is not "no-thing" at all but is a very real something which is necessary to cause all matter to come into existence.
