Replies

The universe is governed by the laws of metaphysics. Out of nothing, comes nothing. This has been around since Plato, and we have yet to discover anything that violates this rule. The universe cannot have always existed, because infinity is a theoretical construct that can never exist in our universe. It causes mathematical inconsistencies, as outlined in Hilbert’s Hotel.

To summarize the case -

1) The universe exists
2) Governed by natural law, everything that exists has a cause or a ‘beginning’
3) The universe has a beginning

You only have two explanations for its existence. One is that it appeared from nothing, which defies logic. The other is that a transcendent cause brought it into being.
The only transcendent cause that makes sense is an unembodied mind. God.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. It simple means a study of the nature of the universe on the fundamental level.

It is possible for existence to be finite and eternal. It exists for as long as time does and time exists so long as there is existence. We can’t even ask what was here before anything was here. What evidence is there that the universe had a beginning? Who says that the big bang was THE beginning?

According to your argument, then god had to have a cause. If everything that exists has a cause or a beginning then if a God exists then it had to have a beginning. But the article points out that that would lead to an infinite regression which is the logical problem with the first cause argument. So if a god can exist with no beginning then so can existence.

I believe that existence is an axiom. It is an irreducible primary. It is an absolute and needs no cause. No one knows where it came from and I mean no one. Many people accept an explanation on faith. To me faith is not a good foundation for knowledge. I don’t need faith to know that existence exists. It is self evident. So that is my starting point of knowledge and I go from there and just because we don’t have answers to every question does not mean we get to fill in with speculation and call it knowledge. Scientists speculate for the purpose of coming up with an explanation then they go on to look for evidence. They ask: Does this speculation (hypothesis) correspond to reality. Once again reality, existence, is the means of validation. For a rational person, it is the only means of validation. Existence itself needs none.

To summarize the case -
1) The universe exists
2) Governed by natural law, everything that exists has a cause or a ‘beginning’
3) The universe has a beginning
You only have two explanations for its existence. One is that it appeared from nothing, which defies logic. The other is that a transcendent cause brought it into being.
The only transcendent cause that makes sense is an unembodied mind. God.

Two problems:

1. Nothing in nature is "governed" by "natural laws." What we call natural laws are our characterizations of regularities we believe we observe given our scope of observation both in terms of time and extent. We hypothesize that what we see during our period of observation and within our neck of the woods is a fundamental characteristic throughout time and throughout the universe (the term 'universe' begs the question). We hope that what we think we observe is actually something "out there," existing as a property of nature. Still, it would be a property of nature not something that somehow directs or governs so-called natural processes.

2. God is posited to exist but to exist without beginning or cause; therefore, "natural" is just a definition meaning, "something that exists which has a beginning or a cause that lies outside itself." This is true when speaking of some "thing" or "event" within nature, but doesn't necessarily apply to nature as a whole because if nature really is all that there is, then it has no antecedent cause, there logically existing nothing else that can effect it, and, therefore, must be self-existent; the same property imputed to God, the main difference being that self-conscious self-existence is usually referred to as God and non-conscious self-existence is usually referred to as nature, though there is a spectrum of beings in either direction being called God or nature or something in between or something emerging from one into the other. Either being, as an uncaused causer either of the conscious or non-conscious variety, has been said by many over the millennia to defy logic or understanding, though Calvin seems to think he had it all nailed down. Poor schmuck.