1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Ergo, the universe had a cause.
Just wanted to bump this before the prune, I needed to know how to prove the argument wrong.
I.
Okay, the simplest and cleanest way to destroy this "proof" of God (to me) is that there is no requirement that a thing that creates a universe should be God-like.
I mean, let's say galaxies were caused by the Big Bang. Now you want to say, "Okay, so something caused the Big Bang. Let's call that God." But why call it God? Is it intelligent? Is it morally good? Does it love? Is it alive? Does it watch over us? Does it grant us life after death? Does it judge our lives to determine what sort of afterlife we are worthy of?
See, none of those things -- common attributes of most versions of God in popular religions -- are necessarily characteristics of a universe-creating thing.
Basically all you prove is that SOMETHING pre-existed the Big Bang. Then you do a huge fucking unsupported leap to say, "Oh, that's God."
I mean, if you want to define the word God as "Whatever the fuck preceded and directly caused the universe" that's fine. If we can agree on that definition. Now, care to explain how we get to proof that this total unknown causal factor has any more importance to our daily lives than, say, the Big Bang? Or why, in fact, should you pray or worship this causal factor any more than you pray or worship the Big Bang?
II.
A second glaring flaw is the presumption that the Big Bang was the second causal factor ever. Meaning the proof presumes that whatever caused the Big Bang was the FIRST cause, and itself was the one uncaused thing that has always existed. Hmmm... But who's to say the Big Bang wasn't the 5,243,444,001 thing in the causal chain leading to now? Whose to say the thing that cause the Big Bang wasn't number 5,243,444,000 in the causal chain leading to now? And who's to say that thing that caused the Big Bang wasn't a totally unintelligent, unloving chemical process? And, in fact, even if you could go back 5,243,444,000 causes BEFORE the Big Bang, to that "holy" First Cause, consider just how fucking far removed we are from that cause. Who's to say we were the intended result of that cause, rather than a mere by-product? We could be so far removed from the First Cause that, even if it is an intelligent, immortal entity, it gives absolutely no thought to us or to how we behave and, in fact, it could be so alien from us (and almost inevitably would have to be) that it could not possibly understand our behavior enough to stand in moral judgment of us, or even communicate with us on any meaningful level any more than you could morally judge or communicate with some microscopic bacteria living in the stomach lining of an ant.
III.
If you want to be more logically nitpicky, you can tear apart the basic assumptions:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
a. Note this does not say that everything has a cause, or that everything that exists has a cause. It says that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. Think about that. It is totally circular. Great. And everyone who wears a hat has a hat on. Whoop-di-doo.
b. I wonder if anything really does ever begin to exist. Isn't there some law about conservation of mass and energy? Does anything really BEGIN to exist, or are all things that exist merely transformations of things that previously existed. We are not a human popping into existence. We are an ape transformed through evolution into a human. Or on a more immediate level, you are your parents' genes combined with food molecules and oxygen molecules which react and transform into YOU.
If everything is seen as a transformation of its predecessor, then you don't have a universe of causers and causees. You have a universe which is, itself, eternally transforming. Right now it is expanding. Way long ago, it was a tight ball of matter and energy compressing until it got so tight it exploded outward. Before that it might have been expanding. Sort of like a universal yo-yo going up and down. Only in this case it expands and compresses. Isn't that the nature of life? Isn't that what your lungs do throughout your life? We are just transformed fragments of the universe, embodying its basic characteristics.
Anyway, for stuff to transform (rather than "come into existence) you need no outside causes. Things can transform based on their own internal promptings. Like a caterpillar transforming into a butterlfy.
c. You can also poke at the assumption that nothing can spontaneously come into existence from nothingness? While I tend to agree with this idea, I don't think it can be proven. It comes back to the problem I pointed out earlier: If nothing cannot lead to something, then for us to exist there could NEVER have been nothing in the universe. Meaning something has ALWAYS existed. Which means time goes backwards infinitely. But if time can go backwards an infinite distance, then we could never have gotten to NOW. Like if you had a timeline and put the present at "zero" and you start counting forward from minus infinite, you will never reach zero. So assuming that something cannot come from nothing leads to its OWN logical dilemma. Which dilemma do you prefer, the dilemma of an impossible infinite past, or the dilemma of something coming from nothing? The proof implicitly chooses the first dilemma over the second, but then it gives no solution to the dilemma.
The solution, in fact, is that time is not linear. We humans trapped in our three dimensional universe, seeing a near infinitismal fraction of reality, have a skewed view of reality. Clearly, the paradox above, presuming that we must accept one of those two impossible dilemmas, is necessarily false. If we are left to choose between impossibilities, we must go re-thiink our framework that led to our formulation of our choices. In this case, that framework is the idea that time is a linear path of cause and effect. That simply MUST be wrong. And that undermines the whole proof.
The universe began to exist.
d. WTF?? Where'd this assumption come from? Who the hell says the universe "began" to exist? Initially, I refer back to my point that stuff doesn't spring into existence, but rather transforms from one aspect to another. So to speak of the universe "beginning" to exist is using imprecise terminology that injects a high level of bias into the proof.
It has also been pointed out by others that it is entirely conceivable that the big bang was not an explosion set in place by some outside force, like a boy setting off a firecracker, but could rather be seen as the continuing process of a universe that continually expands and contracts. It contracts till all matter and energy is pressed as tightly as it can be. Then it tries to contract a tiny bit more and KABOOM. Too much energy and matter in too small a space, one subatomic particle is forced to bisect an atom and whammo, nuclear explosion. Which sets off a chain reaction. I think I've heard a nuclear explosion sets of a chain reaction whose breadth is directly proportional to the density of surrounding atoms. Well, obviously in this scenario you've got the densest collection of atoms theoretically possible in all the universe (i.e., all atoms as close together as they can possibly be) which should create the mother of all nuclear explosions. A very big bang. And all atoms that are lucky enough NOT to get split by subatomic particles (i.e., all the surviving matter) flies outward at superspeed. The expanding universe is back with a vengeance. While the gravitational pull of matter on matter pulls like a person pulling on the reins of a runaway horse. Eventually, it will have an effect, slowing down the expansion. Eventally, it will lead to a contracting universe. And the whole process starts over again.
This makes a hell of a lot more sense than some immortal father figure waving a hand and declaring "Let the universe form."
The bottom line is that the ideas that the universe had a "first cause" and that that "first cause" is WORTHY of the term "God" simply because it was the "first cause" (without regard to its intellect, motives, or present day affiliation with humanity) are both fraught with problems.
You want a counterproof that proves that the universe was NOT created by God? How's this:
1) God is perfect.
2) A perfect being has no needs or wants.
3) Intentionally creation by an intelligent being is always an attempt to satisfy a need or want (i.e., if you did not need or want the created thing, you would not have had the motive to create it in the first place.)
4) Therefore, if an intelligent being created the universe, that being cannot be perfect.
5) Therefore, if an intelligent being created the universe, that being cannot be God.
This creates a proof from a common criticism I have of religions that claim their God is "perfect" even while their own religious texts are full of examples of their "perfect" God having needs and wants, getting mad, getting sorry, seeking vengeance, changing his mind, and doing a host of other things that are quite simply contradictory with the idea of a "perfect" being.
I also think that there is something misguided in seeking to proof the original proof wrong. You do not disprove a proof. Rather, you show how the alleged proof is, in fact, not a proof at all because of internal flaws, unwarranted assumptions, etc. Once you call it a "proof" you have gone too far. If it really is a "proof" it cannot be proven wrong.
~psychoblast~
but once i find the right site that has that scientific proof i will show it to you