Well let's not be too hasty (either way) until we evaluate the situation. Let's try to use some logic and see where it takes us.
Logic? Well, it's never too late to start.
I really don't see where this is relevant. But if you mean to suggest that other universes exist without a beginning, I hope you remember that the BGV addressed multiple universes also. But we're beyond that now and discussing possible causes.
After all this, now you say you don't need convincing that p2 was probably true? I'm wondering what evidence or argument you knew of that I didn't reference. Okay, well I guess the exercise did us good, eh?
You still move to fast for me. Let's see what we can figure anything out about the probable cause first. For example, if we feel that we can safely conclude that the cause had wings and looked like your dragon, then we could rule out the Abrahamic god, right?
So it seems to me that we can first say that the cause is probably immaterial. I say that because it is incoherent to suggest that since the universe contains everything material, that something within the universe could have created itself.
In like manner, the cause would have been space-less.
Where would it be?
In like manner, I think we could also say that the cause was probably timeless.
Frozen like a bug in amber.
Since something within the space-time universe could not have created itself, then the cause must have been timeless.
Yet you cannot rule it out.
Whatever the cause was, it would have to at least been as powerful as all of the power within the universe.
The observed net energy of the universe is zero - it you are not continuing to cherry-pick the science as you see fit.
Since time began at the beginning of the universe, then we can say that there never was a time when the cause did not exist. That means the cause was a "necessary" thing (its existence is not contingent on anything else), and was therefore an uncaused thing.
I do not presume that this can be adequately described in layman's language, and would defer to the astrophysicists on this one. Do you know better?
This one is really hard for many people to understand.
Or explain.
If the cause was just an inanimate natural cause,
Who said inanimate?
and the conditions existed to cause the universe to begin to exist (the effect) with the cause, it's hard to understand why of both of them did not always exist. But instead, we have evidence that the effect (the universe existing) began a finite time ago, and therefore,
continuing to speculate...
there was a state of affairs in which the cause exists without the effect. It seems the only way for this to work is if the cause was a personal being.
Or, it is case of anthropomorphic projection.
We have that situation now. I could be sitting in a chair and then all of a sudden I (the cause) could choose to sit up (the effect). I would be referred to as a free causal agent (as opposed to a deterministic one).
What do you mean by "free"?
It is my understanding that the modern philosophy of mind would have what we experience as having made decisions as only a narrative constructed by the brain.
From
http://www.naturalism.org/metzinger.htm
The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)
From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)
So it seems to me that we could say that the cause of the universe beginning to exist could be space-less,
Where is it?
Stuck like a bug in amber,
Special pleading
What is it made of?
Near zero.
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.
When I consider all of the candidates that would fit that description, I could list the Jewish, Islamic, or Christian god, and even a mean god.
And, ruling out those beings claimed to have both material traits and be immaterial as that would be incoherent, according to you.
It is notable that this argument actually rules out all of the Greek and Roman gods, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Not if the FSM is made of immaterial, timeless, and space-less pasta. Is he the only one in the running at this point?
