Even though I've covered this topic previously, my dad brought up a series of questions:
Was there a cause or no cause to creation? Is something out of nothing a logical possibility? If so, all the laws of chemistry and physics would be invalid.There is a similar argument in Islamic philosophy called the Kalam Cosmological Argument (a modernized version of the cosmological argument) which states a premise that everything that begins to exist must have had a cause, and that because the universe began to exist (according to big bang theory), the universe must have had a cause, and that cause must be infinite and all-powerful and intelligent. There are a couple of problems I have with this argument. The first problem is, why does a "first cause" automatically imply a creator? That is, what logical reasoning is there to draw a line from "there was a first cause" to "the first cause was an intelligent creator"? The second problem is this: If God caused the universe to begin, and God is a part of a causal chain of events, what caused God? You say that God is "uncaused" because he exists atemporally (outside of time) To me, this is borderline begging the question: in order for god to exist, you must make an assumption that he exists atemporally. Is that not the very thing you are trying to demonstrate -- that he exists at all?
- Law of causality: all effects have a cause. These effects cannot be self caused
- The First Cause would have to exist outside of the universe and have no cause, therefore would have to be eternal in nature
- Multiple universe theories have no solution to the problem. There's no way to test the theory and they still have to have a first cause -- it only multiplies the problem rather than give meaningful answers
- Therefore, only two possibilities exist:
- The universe is eternal and without cause. (Everything came from nothing...somehow, or has existed forever...somehow)
- There is a First Cause that is eternal outside the universe (Everything came from something outside the universe who is eternal and without cause)
- Which is more logical to believe? Which has more evidence?
Consider this: according to current science, the big bang arose from a singularity -- a state at which the laws of space-time itself break down, where the laws of time do not apply. If you are saying that God's atemporal existence requires no cause, then don't you also have to admit that a singularity (which is also atemporal) does not require a cause? To me, what it all really comes down to is this: with what we currently know from science, any ideas about what happened before the big bang, whether it's colliding membranes in a multiverse, or an intelligent being, is purely speculation -- we just don't know!
At some point you mentioned the multiple universe theory, and that it was untestable. I agree! At this point (while it's a neat idea), I'm not sure it's a viable scientific theory, and therefore it cannot be used as a premise for any "truth-seeking" argument. This causes me to ask you, however: is the idea of God in any way testable? If your standards for truth depend on scientific method, why should God not be held to those same standards? If you believe in God, why not believe in multiple universes?