The universe with no need of God

[dcalling]

I'm labeling the cosmic beginning as the t=0 event.

Remember that event is only a label, before that there is still time. It is only a point in the infinite time line.

Your inclination to believe in an eternal universe is understandable in an intuitive sense, but it is not forgivable considering the vastness of the internet that lies before you. Any flat-earther who has not investigated the facts as to why the earth is a sphere does not deserve to be taken seriously. Given the overwhelming majority on the issue of the shape of earth, any flat-earther must lead with, at the very least, the acknowledgement that a flat earth model implies the existence of boundary conditions which should be easily detectable. So imagine my confusion when you posit an eternal universe and yet also describe the properties of entropy, the very thing that explains why the universe must be finite in age.

Don't know why you pull flat earth into this, I am simply trying to show you that the t=0 even is objective, before t=0 (cosmic beginning) there is still time.

I'm not inclined to explain to you the exhaustive reasoning as to why the universe must have had a beginning, and since you haven't investigated the matter for yourself up to this point, I'll make no assumption that you will and so I will address your eternal universe model from a theological perspective. Any Christian who takes up the task to read the whole Bible from cover to cover usually bows out before they get to the parts about rape, genocide, and utter insanity that make up the bulk of the Old Testament, but none of these people have trouble reading the very first verse:

You do know it is a Christian who first proposed the concept of big ban? We all know from our current observations that the universe seems to be expanding and it affirms the big ban theory. But I am not trying to argue with you on that, I am only asking as what's before the big ban, what caused the big ban, does time exists before big ban?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Every theist I know of, aside from you, believes that the universe had a beginning and that it required an initial cause. For the Christians, their reasoning is the very first thing stated in their scriptures. I made the following graphic to explain why that thinking is wrong:

Not me, the word "in the beginning" could mean the beginning of this world, God might have created other worlds before this, that is out side of the bounds of this discussion.

Also my argument is the t=0 event is objective, unless you believe before t=0 there is no time.

And if you are a true atheist, physical laws should always exists, just the ones we currently observed is only the laws (and just a approximate one) under current conditions, and seperate laws exists before your so called t=0.

 

[dcalling]

I'm not saying that the genetic algorithm is creative in precisely the same way that engineers are creative. But that is irrelevant.

My point stands: Even though genetic algorithms employ pseudo-random number generation, that nevertheless is equivalent to the "randomness" found in nature. And such a process can come up with optimal or near-optimal solutions to problems that even intelligent engineers might not discover. Genetic algorithms are based on Darwinian insights, and so your hypothetical engineer is not being fooled by anything. Computers imitate natural selection, and benefit! One simply cannot conclude that if human beings are (at least as yet) unable to solve certain problems, then nature cannot solve those problems.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark,

Think about it. The only addition of this so called "genetic algorithm" to full permutation (i.e. standard map solving) is the randomness. All it does is, instead of do the full permutation, randomly choose some set of permutation that fits the criteria. The only thing it gains is time, the result might not be the best. There is no creativity in this, it is simple calculation, the same as you ask me what's the Nth digit of pi, and even an intelligence engineer might not known, but some algrithm can calculate it, no creativity. Think about that

 

[Blondepudding]

The so called big bang isn't a real thing as I understand it. Rather it is a term that was initiated to ridicule the theory of creation from the scientific perspective.

That being said, one thing I've noticed about the world religions and without exception. All their deities bear human characteristics. Even the Egyptians pantheon with its hybridized gods and goddesses.

I don't believe if there was anything that would be qualified to be called source of it all that puny human intellects could comprehend "It". Instead, I believe those that need to believe in something greater than themselves accept the "it" they can feel most comfortable with. A unique understanding and affinity that derives from the individuals own sense of self confidence first.
If someone believes they're in need of a strict parental role model they may gravitate toward the legalistic fundamental deity and religious affiliated with that.
If they're more open they may go toward earth religions.

I think the Christians God as made to keep people in line. The most stringent rules of discipline under the greatest threat of punishment for disobedience.
It is a deity that looks like the worst dictator. The worst serial killer. The worst disciplinarian in all of human history. Only it is decreed a spirit. Something unseen but described with those attributes that are to be taken on faith, the hope, that it is all true and it does exist. And after all the genocide described in a book it is claimed to have inspired and because somehow it thought a largely illiterate population would understand early writings about it coming from it, it is said to be first and foremost a spirit of love.

And that the people it created do not know love unless they understand everything that deity did in all the pages of the book it wrote of itself was out of love for the human population it created. Created to be what it is and means to be human. And then punished them for it while setting a standard of excellence that was created impossible for humans to achieve. From the beginning of human existence when "it" created them in as a reflection of itself. And then cursed the entire human race forevermore because one woman did one thing that made those first humans to realize all the characteristics of god was in themselves. Knowledge of that which is good. And that which is bad. Which according to the god that possessed those exact same understandings was an unforgivable wrongdoing. FOR EVERRRRRRRRR!

UNLESS, millions of years later, those cursed people believed in the demigod that was tortured to death in the name of love. Making a new understanding between "it" and people. That believing that demigod story would allow people to live a new narrative wherein the god that made the rule about damnation tortured his only son to change the rule he'd previously made about damnation.

I'm a happy Ignostic for a reason.

 

[dcalling]

There is no "before" the beginning of time because before is undefined.



No, time is not still either "before" t=0 (since there is no before) or at t=0, since physical reality is already travelling on its merry way to t=1.



It was the nature of whatever existed at t=0 that caused things to move. Since time is not "still" at t=0, this isn't any sort of philosophical problem.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You can't say "before" is undefined, there is definitely something in "before" right? If time is not "still" at t=0 as you explained, t=0 is not a point in time but a period of time then, so it is not t=0 any more.

 

[dcalling]

The so called big bang isn't a real thing as I understand it. Rather it is a term that was initiated to ridicule the theory of creation from the scientific perspective.

That being said, one thing I've noticed about the world religions and without exception. All their deities bear human characteristics. Even the Egyptians pantheon with its hybridized gods and goddesses.

I don't believe if there was anything that would be qualified to be called source of it all that puny human intellects could comprehend "It". Instead, I believe those that need to believe in something greater than themselves accept the "it" they can feel most comfortable with. A unique understanding and affinity that derives from the individuals own sense of self confidence first.
If someone believes they're in need of a strict parental role model they may gravitate toward the legalistic fundamental deity and religious affiliated with that.
If they're more open they may go toward earth religions.

I think the Christians God as made to keep people in line. The most stringent rules of discipline under the greatest threat of punishment for disobedience.
It is a deity that looks like the worst dictator. The worst serial killer. The worst disciplinarian in all of human history. Only it is decreed a spirit. Something unseen but described with those attributes that are to be taken on faith, the hope, that it is all true and it does exist. And after all the genocide described in a book it is claimed to have inspired and because somehow it thought a largely illiterate population would understand early writings about it coming from it, it is said to be first and foremost a spirit of love.

And that the people it created do not know love unless they understand everything that deity did in all the pages of the book it wrote of itself was out of love for the human population it created. Created to be what it is and means to be human. And then punished them for it while setting a standard of excellence that was created impossible for humans to achieve. From the beginning of human existence when "it" created them in as a reflection of itself. And then cursed the entire human race forevermore because one woman did one thing that made those first humans to realize all the characteristics of god was in themselves. Knowledge of that which is good. And that which is bad. Which according to the god that possessed those exact same understandings was an unforgivable wrongdoing. FOR EVERRRRRRRRR!

UNLESS, millions of years later, those cursed people believed in the demigod that was tortured to death in the name of love. Making a new understanding between "it" and people. That believing that demigod story would allow people to live a new narrative wherein the god that made the rule about damnation tortured his only son to change the rule he'd previously made about damnation.

I'm a happy Ignostic for a reason.

I think you have read a lot of different and inaccurate things that fits your liking
Check out big ban here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

[Blondepudding]

I think you have read a lot of different and inaccurate things that fits your liking
Check out big ban here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I can appreciate your thinking. But using Wiki to rebuff what I was saying isn't a way to uphold your end I don't think. I can go in and edit that entire article. So can you. That's not making for a source that assures accuracy.

 

[dcalling]

I can appreciate your thinking. But using Wiki to rebuff what I was saying isn't a way to uphold your end I don't think. I can go in and edit that entire article. So can you. That's not making for a source that assures accuracy.

Give it a try, it will get modded back to the correct value fast on those obvious topics, and you can see the edit history too.
But the point is the big ban theory is very well known, there are many other articles on this. I have no idea where you got your misguided idea from....

 

[Blondepudding]

Give it a try, it will get modded back to the correct value fast on those obvious topics, and you can see the edit history too.
But the point is the big ban theory is very well known, there are many other articles on this. I have no idea where you got your misguided idea from....

“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts.”

It was from an article long ago in Nature. When I get back home I'll see if I can find it. It's over 20 years old.
Bye for now.

 

[ScottA]

The so called big bang isn't a real thing as I understand it. Rather it is a term that was initiated to ridicule the theory of creation from the scientific perspective.

That being said, one thing I've noticed about the world religions and without exception. All their deities bear human characteristics. Even the Egyptians pantheon with its hybridized gods and goddesses.

I don't believe if there was anything that would be qualified to be called source of it all that puny human intellects could comprehend "It". Instead, I believe those that need to believe in something greater than themselves accept the "it" they can feel most comfortable with. A unique understanding and affinity that derives from the individuals own sense of self confidence first.
If someone believes they're in need of a strict parental role model they may gravitate toward the legalistic fundamental deity and religious affiliated with that.
If they're more open they may go toward earth religions.

I think the Christians God as made to keep people in line. The most stringent rules of discipline under the greatest threat of punishment for disobedience.
It is a deity that looks like the worst dictator. The worst serial killer. The worst disciplinarian in all of human history. Only it is decreed a spirit. Something unseen but described with those attributes that are to be taken on faith, the hope, that it is all true and it does exist. And after all the genocide described in a book it is claimed to have inspired and because somehow it thought a largely illiterate population would understand early writings about it coming from it, it is said to be first and foremost a spirit of love.

And that the people it created do not know love unless they understand everything that deity did in all the pages of the book it wrote of itself was out of love for the human population it created. Created to be what it is and means to be human. And then punished them for it while setting a standard of excellence that was created impossible for humans to achieve. From the beginning of human existence when "it" created them in as a reflection of itself. And then cursed the entire human race forevermore because one woman did one thing that made those first humans to realize all the characteristics of god was in themselves. Knowledge of that which is good. And that which is bad. Which according to the god that possessed those exact same understandings was an unforgivable wrongdoing. FOR EVERRRRRRRRR!

UNLESS, millions of years later, those cursed people believed in the demigod that was tortured to death in the name of love. Making a new understanding between "it" and people. That believing that demigod story would allow people to live a new narrative wherein the god that made the rule about damnation tortured his only son to change the rule he'd previously made about damnation.

I'm a happy Ignostic for a reason.

So, then you add your opinion to be included in the multitude of conjecture, not knowing for certain. Bravo.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have the word of a Higher authority - and you cannot name one fallacy in what I have told you.

Well, there's the appeal to authority fallacy. But said authority must exist for there to be a fallacy. So in the end I cannot identify a fallacy until you propose an argument. Thus far you've given assertions based on nothing, and by definition that is not an argument.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Remember that event is only a label, before that there is still time. It is only a point in the infinite time line.

Wrong.

Don't know why you pull flat earth into this, I am simply trying to show you that the t=0 even is objective, before t=0 (cosmic beginning) there is still time.

The flat earth is an analogy to your position, which is wrong and outdated. The flat earth position does not deserve a respectful response. The position that the universe is eternal likewise does not deserve a respectful response. The universe had a beginning and that is not a point in question, it is not up for debate.

You do know it is a Christian who first proposed the concept of big ban?

So?

We all know from our current observations that the universe seems to be expanding and it affirms the big ban theory. But I am not trying to argue with you on that, I am only asking as what's before the big ban, what caused the big ban, does time exists before big ban?

Time does not exist before the Big Bang. That is why I'm going through great pains to call the Big Bang the t=0 event. Again, this is not in dispute. You are exhausting my patience on this issue.

Not me, the word "in the beginning" could mean the beginning of this world, God might have created other worlds before this, that is out side of the bounds of this discussion.

The existence of other worlds would have no relation to us in any chronological sense, so it is nonsensical to say that God could have created them before our world. I dispute the notion of creatio ex nihilo, but ignoring that for the moment it still holds that there is no chronology when comparing the creation of one universe to another.

Also my argument is the t=0 event is objective, unless you believe before t=0 there is no time.

There is nothing before t=0 and this is not up for debate.

And if you are a true atheist, physical laws should always exists, just the ones we currently observed is only the laws (and just a approximate one) under current conditions, and seperate laws exists before your so called t=0.

My position on the existence of physical laws is unrelated to atheism or "true atheism." Aside from this point I'm having difficulty discerning meaning from the rest of what you said. But I'll say that the physical laws of our universe do not pre-exist the universe, I think that is relevant to what you said.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mark,

Think about it. The only addition of this so called "genetic algorithm" to full permutation (i.e. standard map solving) is the randomness. All it does is, instead of do the full permutation, randomly choose some set of permutation that fits the criteria. The only thing it gains is time, the result might not be the best. There is no creativity in this, it is simple calculation, the same as you ask me what's the Nth digit of pi, and even an intelligence engineer might not known, but some algrithm can calculate it, no creativity. Think about that

You are trying to change the point that I was addressing. Please don't do that.

You may call genetic algorithms "map solving", but if so that is essentially what natural selection does as well, and it can come up with better solutions than intelligent beings. My point was never that nature is more "creative" than human beings in some specifically human fashion, but that just because an intelligent engineer might not find some optimum or near-optimum solution to a problem, that doesn't mean that a "random" process can't accomplish this. That's it!

In any case, I don't see the point in beating a dead horse, so thanks for the discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can't say "before" is undefined, there is definitely something in "before" right?

No, there isn't. In the model we are talking about, time is a property of the universe. Time is not something that exists "outside" of the universe, including "before" the universe.

If time is not "still" at t=0 as you explained, t=0 is not a point in time but a period of time then, so it is not t=0 any more.

The exact instant at which you were born can be expressed as a point in time rather than a period of time. However, time was not "still" at that "point". Time was moving inexorably forward. The "point" in time is merely a mental convenience we use when considering when such-and-such happened. It is true that the instant in time when you were born is not present any more, but so what? That doesn't mean that the universe at that instant didn't exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dcalling]

You are trying to change the point that I was addressing. Please don't do that.

You may call genetic algorithms "map solving", but if so that is essentially what natural selection does as well, and it can come up with better solutions than intelligent beings. My point was never that nature is more "creative" than human beings in some specifically human fashion, but that just because an intelligent engineer might not find some optimum or near-optimum solution to a problem, that doesn't mean that a "random" process can't accomplish this. That's it!

In any case, I don't see the point in beating a dead horse, so thanks for the discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, my point is just iterate through a list of possible ways of something (and add some randomness to it) is not intelligence. Nature might got more of the ways because of time, but it can't compare to us who create with our own will at all.

And in any case, we have no model for feelings to exist neighter self awareness. Long before computers scientists has come up very complex models for all kinds of algorithms, and many only saw use after we got computers. But none has come up with anything such as self awareness. As an engineer to another engineer, you are trying to deceive yourself if you can't see that one. No matter how many lines of code are there, no matter how complex the state machine is, it does not have self awareness nor feelings.

 

[dcalling]

No, there isn't. In the model we are talking about, time is a property of the universe. Time is not something that exists "outside" of the universe, including "before" the universe.



The exact instant at which you were born can be expressed as a point in time rather than a period of time. However, time was not "still" at that "point". Time was moving inexorably forward. The "point" in time is merely a mental convenience we use when considering when such-and-such happened. It is true that the instant in time when you were born is not present any more, but so what? That doesn't mean that the universe at that instant didn't exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But the problems is before I was born, there is still time. You are arguing that before big bang there is no time. You can see my reply to the other guy.

 

[dcalling]

Time does not exist before the Big Bang. That is why I'm going through great pains to call the Big Bang the t=0 event. Again, this is not in dispute. You are exhausting my patience on this issue.

Why is that not in dispute? Which scientist has proven that time does not exist before the big bang?

If you are relating to Einstein's theory of relativity that mass slows down time, it is just a slow down, not stopped. I am very curious about what evidence you have on "Time does not exist before the Big Bang"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why is that not in dispute? Which scientist has proven that time does not exist before the big bang?

If you are relating to Einstein's theory of relativity that mass slows down time, it is just a slow down, not stopped. I am very curious about what evidence you have on "Time does not exist before the Big Bang"

I'm not inclined to prove this concept to you. I already abandoned the other conversation in which you were disputing evolution. You need to perform your own independent research.

 

[dcalling]

I'm not inclined to prove this concept to you. I already abandoned the other conversation in which you were disputing evolution. You need to perform your own independent research.

All because you didn't do your own research? Just read up on not so recent development on quantum physics, some of Einstien's idea already proven wrong. Your t=0 on big bang is out of date.

 

[ScottA]

Well, there's the appeal to authority fallacy. But said authority must exist for there to be a fallacy. So in the end I cannot identify a fallacy until you propose an argument. Thus far you've given assertions based on nothing, and by definition that is not an argument.

So, then, your position is as empty as you have made it.

But, I do not assert anything, but rather have state the facts as they are and even gone on to explain that the reason that you are out of the loop...is you. And, where I am with God I have all that you would like me to supply you with, and the only reason you do not have the same, is between you and God - this is all about you.

 

[Uber Genius]

In a godless model of the universe, there are four potential explanations for the Big Bang, which I will refer to as the t=0 event so that those who believe in a 6000 year old universe will be more inclined to participate.

I. The t=0 event occurred for no reason and with no cause.
II. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) came into existence for no reason and with no cause.
III. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.
IV. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes resulted from previously existing things, which resulted from previously existing things, and etcetera ad infinitum.

I'll admit that none of these seem to be very satisfying, and what's more, there's no actual evidence to favor one over another. To compound problems further, we see that even if you grant any of them that the atheist chooses (say, choice I.), we are still left with this troublesome conclusion:

1. The universe has properties.
2. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
3. The properties of the universe were not intelligently assigned.
4. The properties of the universe are random.


All the theist must do now is remark that it is unreasonable to believe that the universe as it is came to be by chance, and therefore its properties must be intelligently assigned.

Have I dug my own grave?

To be fair, the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true.

Observe:

1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
2. God has properties.
3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.
4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.
5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.
6a. God's properties are random.
4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.
5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.
6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.
7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.
8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.
9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.

Therefore, God's properties are random. If God created the universe, he created its properties. God's random properties are responsible for the creation of the universe's properties. Therefore, the properties of the universe are random.

The assertion of God as the answer does not solve the problem of the universe's properties being random. Furthermore, it is the assertion of something as fact which is both unfalsifiable and unnecessary. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that God more likely exists than doesn't, and it is irrational to suggest that theism is more reasonable than atheism.

If you want to say that we cannot logically dissect God, or that we cannot even discuss matters of the divine, then you refuse to subject your own worldview to the same level of logical scrutiny to which you subject the atheist worldview. This is taken as a withdraw from debate, or in other words, an admission of defeat.



*(There can be a mixture of intelligent assigning and random assigning. For example, with sleight of hand I might give myself a better chance of drawing the ace of spades from 1 chance in 52 to, say, one chance in 10. In this case, it can be said that the card I draw is random to some degree and intelligently assigned to some degree. For the purposes of this thread, I will ignore this possibility because either there is no God, in which case there is no intelligent agent to stack the odds of a certain thing to occur, or else there is a God, in which case said God does not need to rely on chance as he is omnipotent. I assume we can agree to ignore the possibility of a God that has limited power; God is either unlimited in power or else maximally powerful, that is, he can perform any action which is not logically absurd.)


Footnote: I will refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument here so it cannot be said that I'm ignoring it.

The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

Earlier, I entertained the possibility of membranes causing the universe to exist. This does not solve the problem of causality but rather pushes it back one step; the membranes cause the t=0 event in a temporal, physical sense, making the t=0 event the result of causality, but it follows here that the membranes (or the thing from which the membranes ultimately arose) must have come about without cause.

Now, it may well be true that God used some other means besides causality to create the universe, or he might have simply violated logic and caused the t=0 event to occur. In either case, we cannot reach these conclusions logically starting from premises that make sense. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.

Others have rightly identified the false assumptions on the main portion of your post, I would like to deal with your issues in the footnote portion.

"Footnote: I will refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument here so it cannot be said that I'm ignoring it.

The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time."



Certainly an educated person would recognize something is wrong with this formulation as it not only denies God as having a causal role but attempts to create an argument that excludes all possible causation whatsoever.

P1 system~region in space (since the standard model suggest space is created by the Big Bang, it is impossible to have a system outside of this universe).

P2 State ~ arrangement of matter and energy (same objection as P1 no Big Bang = no matter, energy, and otherwise existing things).

Causality therefore couldn't have happened at all by anything.


So let's look at the Kalam Cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Notice how obvious the first premise is.

"It is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle.29 With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss." (See link below)

For over 2300 years we have had a description of causation offered to us by Aristotle:

· Efficient causation, which is the cause that brings into being its effect – the productive cause of some thing.

· Material causation, which is the stuff out of which some thing is made.

· Formal causation, which is a sort of pattern or information content of the effect.

· Final causation, which is the end or the goal or purpose for which some thing is created.

By equivocating efficient cause with material cause the OP destroys causation of the universe altogether as a possibility (oops).

A simple fallacy which does serious worldview damage if not caught early.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4M2UeVmS4

Hope this helps.