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.