Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[JimL]

Why? Why do you think it is more logical that something which exists as a brute fact be infinite in extent rather than finite? I am certainly unaware of any logical argument for such a case.

Because the very notion of a spacetime boundary seems utterly ridiculous to me. If there is no region within the which the universe is expanding, then how could it expand. I know, your argument is that the universe is not really expanding, its expansion too is an illusion, but that still leaves the same ridiculous notion, in my opinion, that there is some sort of boundary to spacetime beyond the which nothing can pass through.

When we say, "Nothing exists beyond our universe," we are not saying that, beyond our universe, there exists an actual region which is best categorized as nothingness. That would be a nonsensical and self-defeating claim: if it is an actual region, it most certainly is not "nothing."

Exactly, and if the region outside of our universe is not "nothing" then it is "something," something within the which our universe exists.

Rather, think of the precisely analogous claim, "Nothing exists north of the North Pole." Again, we're not saying that a region of nothingness actually does exist to the north of the North Pole. We're saying that there is no such thing as "north of the North Pole."

But that is not a good analogy because the earth exists within the universe and so there is a such thing as beyond the north pole. You can of course make the argument, or assertion, that there is no such thing as beyond "our universe", that our universe is finite, bounded, and that there is nothing, no region external to it. But that assertion is certainly not evident, and a boundary to eternal existence just seems odd to me. Is it a wall of some sort, with a sign saying stop, you have reached the end of existence?

In exactly the same way, there is no such thing as "beyond our universe." The phrase is, itself, nonsensical. "Beyond" is a descriptor of spatial relation. In the absence of space, what is it intended to mean

Beyond in that sense is intended to mean whatever it is that you are calling "nothing" that is external to, or beyond our universe.

I talk about this exact question in the blog post which I linked, but let me quote my own work for the sake of brevity:

Okay, great analogy and explanation. Even I can grasp that.

But I think that Craig is probably making a distinction between real time, or time as it accords with the whole of existence, and time as it is percieved by minds within the whole. I remember seeing an image once of the universe represented as a sphere, in which in sync clocks were placed all around the surface of the image, and as the sphere expanded in time like a balloon, the time on all the clocks remained in sychronization. So, wouldn't that mean that there is an absolute time pertaining to the whole of the universe, even though internally it is reference frame dependent? I don't know, does that make any sense at all?

Quite the contrary, brain states are only one extremely tiny subset of the whole panoply of that which exists on the block universe view of space-time.

Why would anything other than brain states be needed?

[Mountain Man]

Are you ever going to address why you dishonestly quote-mined my post?



You just admitted that what you just said about God is meaningless. So there's no reason for me to take it seriously.



Why did you quote-mine my post?

I never claimed that Craig accepted option B.



Another misrepresentation. I never said that. I instead noted that neither option B nor option A would work for proponents of Kalaam, so proponents of Kalaam were screwed either way.



Which is not the same as claiming that Craig actually accepts option B. After all, Craig engages in special peading when it suits his purposes.



You're apparently so confused that you can't the difference between:

If Craig does not accept 1, then Craig is guilty of special pleading

vs.:

Craig actually accepts 1

Already did:

And Quentin Smith has made the point even more general, by noting that Craig has no coherent account of causation, on which his God could cause the universe to exist:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/q...causation.html

"Are you ever going to address why you dishonestly quote-mined my post?"

No, but I will suggest that you look up the definition of "quote-mining" before falsely accusing someone of doing it. And, maybe, show a bit more self-awareness in how you're responding to other people's posts.

"You just admitted that what you just said about God is meaningless."

No, what I admitted is that any discussion of an atemporal being is necessarily limited because of our temporal perspective and the temporal nature of our language. Now you can either continue to whine about semantics or come up with a real argument.

"I instead noted that neither option B nor option A would work for proponents of Kalaam, so proponents of Kalaam were screwed either way."

Oh, I see, so it's a false dilemma. Perhaps I gave you too much credit when I assumed you weren't so dumb as to base your argument on such an obvious logical fallacy. Thank you for ensuring I don't make that mistake in the future.

"And Quentin Smith has made the point even more general, by noting that Craig has no coherent account of causation, on which his God could cause the universe to exist."

Of course Smith's entire argument is hinged on the begged question that cause and effect imply a temporal relationship and doesn't address any of Craig's thoughts on the matter, specifically:

Source: Causation and Spacetime

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causation-and-spacetime

© Copyright Original Source

But wait, there's more!

Source: God, Time and Eternity

if nothing existed and then something existed, there is no absurdity in speaking of this as the first moment of time. Brian Ellis notes that because we speak of 'before creation' or 'prior to the first event', we tend to think that a beginning of time is impossible.22 But Ellis draws a very instructive analogy between this sort of speech and talk of temperatures below absolute zero. When a physicist says there are no temperatures lower than absolute zero, the use of 'lower than' does not presuppose there actually are such temperatures, but only that we can conceive it in our minds. In the same way, to say there was a time when the universe did not exist does not imply there was such a time, but only that we can mentally conceive of such a time. To say there is no time before the first event is like saying there is no temperature -273 C. Both express limits beyond which only the mind can travel. Whitrow remarks in this connection that many people have difficulty imagining a beginning to time because they think of it as a boundary similar to a boundary of space.23 We reject the latter because we could presumably cross the boundary and find space on the other side. But the case with time is different because we cannot travel freely in time as in space. If time coexists with events, then an origin of time merely implies a beginning of the universe. The first moment of time is not a self-contradictory concept.

There does not appear to be, therefore, any absurdity in the notion of a beginning of time. The idea of a 'time before time' is a mental construction only, a product of the imagination. In reality there seems to be no impossibility in having time arise concommitantly with the universe ex nihilo. Thus, on a Newtonian view of time, the universe arises in an absolute, undifferentiated time, while on a relational view of time, it comes into existence with time.

But, of course, prior to creation was not simply nothing, but God. Would his existence necessitate the presence of time prior to creation? Lucas argues that a personal God could not be timeless and that if God is eternal, then time must be infinite as well. 24 But Hackett argues convincingly that a personal God need not experience a temporal succession of mental states. He could apprehend the whole content of the temporal series in a single eternal intuition, just as I analogously apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God could know the content of all knowledge - past, present, and future - in a simultaneous and eternal intuition.25 Therefore, the fact that the creator is personal does not necessitate the presence of time prior to creation. Sturch argues that in order to avoid an infinite temporal regress of states of consciousness, God's knowledge must be timeless.26 On a Newtonian view of time, God would exist changelessly in an undifferentiated time prior to creation. On a relational view of time, God would exist changelessly and timelessly prior to the first event, creation, which marks the beginning of time.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity-2

© Copyright Original Source

But that's not all!

Source: Timelessness and Creation

Finally, it needs to be asked whether there is not a fourth alternative, towit, an Ockhamist-inspired model of God's existing timelessly sans creation and out of that timeless eternity creating t, by which very act God takes on a temporal mode of existence.16 The presupposition of the first alternative is that there cannot be a first moment of time in God's life, that by creating a first event, God acts in such a way that it entails the existence of time prior to the time of the first event. But the Ockhamist sees no necessity of such a presupposition; by creating a first event God creates a first moment of time, and to imagine any time prior to creation is just that: imagination. God's creation of t out of timeless eternity would circumvent Leftow's problem that God's creation of t logically presupposes the existence of t. As Leftow himself observes, "Suppose that God could have acted from beyond time. If He had, His creation of t from beyond time would not presuppose His existing at t."17

Nevertheless, I think that we should question the coherence of this alternative. Suppose someone asserts that we should reject this alternative for the same reason that I rejected the third, namely, it seems inexplicable why there should be, so to speak, a delay between God's creative action and the effect of that action.18 If God causes something in timeless eternity, then the effect should exist in timeless eternity; the effect should exist co-eternally with God. On a tensed theory of time, it seems metaphysically impossible that God should be timelessly causing an event and yet that event not co-exist with God in eternity, but spring into being at a moment of time in the finite past. God's creating a first event is itself an event which brings God into time. But then the question arises, when does this creative act occur? The answer can only be: simultaneously with the first event. Thus, we are back to the second alternative. If, on the other hand, we adopt a tenseless theory of time, which permits God's timeless causation of a temporal event, then we shall reject the Ockhamist claim that so acting would temporalize God. Rather this would be a bona fide case of God's timelessly creating every t. Therefore, on either theory of time this alternative collapses into another view and so is incoherent.

In summary, then, even if we reject the first, third, and fourth alternatives, nevertheless, the second alternative remains plausible, which dissolves Leftow's trilemma.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/timel...s-and-creation

© Copyright Original Source

I find it hilarious that low-brows like you and Quentin Smith think that one of the today's preeminent philosphers hasn't already considered and rejected your arguments.

[JonathanL]

No, but I will suggest that you look up the definition of "quote-mining" before falsely accusing someone of doing it. And, maybe, show a bit more self-awareness in how you're responding to other people's posts.

I stopped replying to Jichard when I realized that most of his counter-replies consisted of throwing unjustified accusations of various logical fallacies around, hoping that atleast a few would stick.

[Jichard]

I stopped replying to Jichard when I realized that most of his counter-replies consisted of throwing unjustified accusations of various logical fallacies around, hoping that atleast a few would stick.

You do realize how silly your statement looks when you replied to me on this thread?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...523#post239523

And we both know why you stopped replying: you don't have anything of substance to say.

[tabibito]

I stopped replying to Jichard when I realized that most of his counter-replies consisted of throwing unjustified accusations of various logical fallacies around, hoping that atleast a few would stick.

I had not realised before, that accusations of logical fallacies could themselves be used as ad hominem attacks. It is an interesting technique until it is identified - then it just wears thin.

[Jichard]

"Are you ever going to address why you dishonestly quote-mined my post?"

No, but I will suggest that you look up the definition of "quote-mining" before falsely accusing someone of doing it. And, maybe, show a bit more self-awareness in how you're responding to other people's posts.

Already showed that you dishonestly quote-mined: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...139#post240139

"You just admitted that what you just said about God is meaningless."

No, what I admitted is that any discussion of an atemporal being is necessarily limited because of our temporal perspective and the temporal nature of our language. Now you can either continue to whine about semantics or come up with a real argument.

You said that that what you claimed about God is meaningless:

"With this understanding of God -- that he does not have a past, present, or future but exists in an etneral "now" -- talking about him in temporal terms (i.e. as existing "before" the creation of the universe) doesn't make a bit of sense, and so your objection fails."

"Saying that God exists in an eternal "now" where past, present, and future are meaningless concepts is probably the closest we can get to describing a timeless being."

So your claims are meaningless and thus not worth taking seriously.

"I instead noted that neither option B nor option A would work for proponents of Kalaam, so proponents of Kalaam were screwed either way."

Oh, I see, so it's a false dilemma.

No, it's not a false dilemma. A false dilemma is where one claims "A or B", when there's actually a third option C. That's not what I did, since my dilemma was exhaustive:

"option A : don't accept 1
option B : accept 1"

This was the actual structure of my point:

P ===> C or D
~C
~D
Therefore, ~P

That's formally valid. Deal with it.

Perhaps I gave you too much credit when I assumed you weren't so dumb as to base your argument on such an obvious logical fallacy. Thank you for ensuring I don't make that mistake in the future.

Are you so "dumb" that you can't tell the differece between a false dilemma and the argument structure I gave above?

Are you so "dumb" that you can't see that this is not a false dilemma?:

"option A : don't accept 1
option B : accept 1"

"And Quentin Smith has made the point even more general, by noting that Craig has no coherent account of causation, on which his God could cause the universe to exist."

Of course Smith's entire argument is hinged on the begged question that cause and effect imply a temporal relationship

That was not Smith's argument at all. Please don't misrepresent it. Instead, Smith's point was that there is no coherent account of causation on which Craig's account makes sense, since Craig is conflating logically necessary relationships with causal relationships.

and doesn't address any of Craig's thoughts on the matter, specifically:

You know how dumb is is to claim that Smith hasn't address of Craig's thoughts on the matter, when Smith has literally debated Craig on this and they've both written a book together on the subject? Smith has dealt with Craig's arguments at length

Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or do you just make stuff up that you find convenient?

I find it hilarious that low-brows like you and Quentin Smith think that one of the today's preeminent philosphers hasn't already considered and rejected your arguments.

First, Quentin Smith is a philosopher as well.

Second, Craig thinks highly enough of Smith that he wrote a book together with Smith and has commented favorably on Smith's arguments. You're apparently ignorant of this.

Third, you must be "dumb" to think Craig is "one of the today's preeminent philosphers". He isn't. He isn't David Chalmers, nor Hillary Putnam, nor Saul Kripke, nor...

Fourth, none of what you copied and pasted actually addresses Smith's argument.

Fifth, you're wrong when you claim that Smith begs the question, as I explained above. In fact, it's Craig who begs the question. Craig's actual response to Smith's argument, takes the form of Craig begging the question, by saying that Smith's argument must fail since Smith's argument would impy that Craig's position on divine causation is wrong:

""

Sixth, your appeal to authority is noted, and rejected. Deal with the substance of Smith's argument, instead of misrepresenting it as you currently are.

[JonathanL]

You do realize how silly your statement looks when you replied to me on this thread?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...523#post239523

You know what I mean, stop trying to nitpick.

[Adrift]

I find it hilarious that low-brows like you and Quentin Smith think that one of the today's preeminent philosphers hasn't already considered and rejected your arguments.

Great post. Just a couple notes: Quentin Smith isn't really low-brow. Obviously they disagree on a number of fundamental issues, but I believe Craig considers him a friend. They're also both B-theorists, so that's something they share. Also, Craig isn't really considered preeminent outside of Evangelical circles. I think he's a fantastic philosopher, and his work on the Kalam argument is terrific, but he's not exactly considered preeminent in his field. Plantinga on the other hand...

[Adrift]

I stopped replying to Jichard when I realized that most of his counter-replies consisted of throwing unjustified accusations of various logical fallacies around, hoping that atleast a few would stick.

I got the same vibe. He seems to be one of those people cemented into his own head. His inability to post without going into lengthy diatribes that essentially restate what he's already argued, and his constant linking to his own posts, again, as if repeating himself it going to prove the argument true, is also terribly annoying.

[Jichard]

I stopped replying to Jichard when I realized that most of his counter-replies consisted of throwing unjustified accusations of various logical fallacies around, hoping that atleast a few would stick.

I got the same vibe. He seems to be one of those people cemented into his own head. His inability to post without going into lengthy diatribes that essentially restate what he's already argued, and his constant linking to his own posts, again, as if repeating himself it going to prove the argument true, is also terribly annoying.

Ah, another theist with nothing of relevance to say, as opposed to talking about other people. Sad.

If you have nothing of relevance to say, then why do you bother posting? Do you think this is high school, where you should just gossip about people because you have nothing intelligent to say?

By the way, if you're going to be snarky at me, try not to say factually incorrect things that I have to correct. Otherwise, you look sort of ridiculous and petty.

I stopped replying to Jichard when I realized that most of his counter-replies consisted of throwing unjustified accusations of various logical fallacies around, hoping that atleast a few would stick.

Great post. Just a couple notes: Quentin Smith isn't really low-brow. Obviously they disagree on a number of fundamental issues, but I believe Craig considers him a friend. They're also both B-theorists, so that's something they share.

Did you really just claim that Craig is a B-theorist? Really?

"I am wedded to the A-theory of time"

[Jichard]

I stopped replying to Jichard when I realized that most of his counter-replies consisted of throwing unjustified accusations of various logical fallacies around, hoping that atleast a few would stick.

Great post. Just a couple notes: Quentin Smith isn't really low-brow. Obviously they disagree on a number of fundamental issues, but I believe Craig considers him a friend. They're also both B-theorists, so that's something they share.

Did you really just claim that Craig is a B-theorist? Really?

"I am wedded to the A-theory of time"

If you're going to be snarky to people, at least get your basic facts right. Otherwise, you'll look silly when those people have to correct you.

I got the same vibe. He seems to be one of those people cemented into his own head. His inability to post without going into lengthy diatribes that essentially restate what he's already argued, and his constant linking to his own posts, again, as if repeating himself it going to prove the argument true, is also terribly annoying.

[Adrift]

Did you really just claim that Craig is a B-theorist? Really?

Oops. Thanks for the correction. I meant that they're both A-theorists of course.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Because the very notion of a spacetime boundary seems utterly ridiculous to me.

I don't see why. Again, there's no logical problems in conceiving of a bounded universe.

If there is no region within the which the universe is expanding, then how could it expand. I know, your argument is that the universe is not really expanding, its expansion too is an illusion

That's actually not my argument. My argument is that the expansion of the universe is a description of the geometry of space-time. I do not think it is illusory, at all. I think the idea of temporal progression is illusory, so my understanding of what it means for the universe to be in a state of expansion differs from A-Theorists, but that doesn't mean I think universal expansion is illusory.

...but that still leaves the same ridiculous notion, in my opinion, that there is some sort of boundary to spacetime beyond the which nothing can pass through.

Again, why is that ridiculous? I'm going to refer back to my 2-dimensional universe, which I presented earlier in the thread:

SingularityIllustration.gif

Just as before, on this graph, r represents a temporal dimension while θ represents a spatial dimension. This little universe is temporally past finite-- there is an earliest moment of time. It is also spatially finite-- the whole of the spatial dimension measures 2π radians. Again, "expansion" is a description of geometry. Notice how, as we move further and further in time, the circumference of space seems to increase. However, at each interval of time, space still measures 2π radians in circumference. This means that the actual unit of measure, radians, is-- in some sense-- getting larger as we look at subsequent moments in time.

This is very similar to what cosmologists mean when they say that the universe is expanding-- only they are discussing a much more complicated, 4-dimensional non-Euclidean geometry, rather than our very simple 2D space-time.

Exactly, and if the region outside of our universe is not "nothing" then it is "something," something within the which our universe exists.

There is no region outside of our universe. The very notion is incoherent.

You can of course make the argument, or assertion, that there is no such thing as beyond "our universe", that our universe is finite, bounded, and that there is nothing, no region external to it. But that assertion is certainly not evident, and a boundary to eternal existence just seems odd to me. Is it a wall of some sort, with a sign saying stop, you have reached the end of existence?

It actually is somewhat evident, which is why cosmologists attempt to discuss the shape and geometry of the universe. While we do not know the precise shape of the universe, there is physical data which lets us rule out some possibilities. And right now, the physical data we have rules out the possibility that space has been uniformly measured throughout time. This data leads us to the possibility of a closed geometry for our temporal dimension. It doesn't make that possibility a certitude, but it is certainly a likely scenario, and currently the one which is favored by the consensus of cosmologists.

But I think that Craig is probably making a distinction between real time, or time as it accords with the whole of existence, and time as it is percieved by minds within the whole.

Once again, the assertion that there is a "real time" or a "time as it accords with the whole of existence" seems nonsensical in light of the data. What are these phrases intended to mean? How does one differentiate "real time" from other, subjective times?

I remember seeing an image once of the universe represented as a sphere, in which in sync clocks were placed all around the surface of the image, and as the sphere expanded in time like a balloon, the time on all the clocks remained in sychronization. So, wouldn't that mean that there is an absolute time pertaining to the whole of the universe, even though internally it is reference frame dependent? I don't know, does that make any sense at all?

I would have to see the image and what it was intended to represent, to be honest; but the idea of "absolute time" doesn't seem to fit the data which we have.

Why would anything other than brain states be needed?

I'm not sure if you are intimating towards the question of Solipsism, but assuming that you are not, brain states are only an extremely tiny subset of the whole universe. They are not self-existent, but are emergent and complex properties of matter and energy (at least, on a Naturalist view which rejects Mind-Body Dualism).

[Mountain Man]

Already showed that you dishonestly quote-mined: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...139#post240139



You said that that what you claimed about God is meaningless:

"With this understanding of God -- that he does not have a past, present, or future but exists in an etneral "now" -- talking about him in temporal terms (i.e. as existing "before" the creation of the universe) doesn't make a bit of sense, and so your objection fails."

"Saying that God exists in an eternal "now" where past, present, and future are meaningless concepts is probably the closest we can get to describing a timeless being."

So your claims are meaningless and thus not worth taking seriously.



No, it's not a false dilemma. A false dilemma is where one claims "A or B", when there's actually a third option C. That's not what I did, since my dilemma was exhaustive:

"option A : don't accept 1
option B : accept 1"

This was the actual structure of my point:

P ===> C or D
~C
~D
Therefore, ~P

That's formally valid. Deal with it.



Are you so "dumb" that you can't tell the differece between a false dilemma and the argument structure I gave above?

Are you so "dumb" that you can't see that this is not a false dilemma?:

"option A : don't accept 1
option B : accept 1"

That was not Smith's argument at all. Please don't misrepresent it. Instead, Smith's point was that there is no coherent account of causation on which Craig's account makes sense, since Craig is conflating logically necessary relationships with causal relationships.



You know how dumb is is to claim that Smith hasn't address of Craig's thoughts on the matter, when Smith has literally debated Craig on this and they've both written a book together on the subject? Smith has dealt with Craig's arguments at length

Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or do you just make stuff up that you find convenient?



First, Quentin Smith is a philosopher as well.

Second, Craig thinks highly enough of Smith that he wrote a book together with Smith and has commented favorably on Smith's arguments. You're apparently ignorant of this.

Third, you must be "dumb" to think Craig is "one of the today's preeminent philosphers". He isn't. He isn't David Chalmers, nor Hillary Putnam, nor Saul Kripke, nor...

Fourth, none of what you copied and pasted actually addresses Smith's argument.

Fifth, you're wrong when you claim that Smith begs the question, as I explained above. In fact, it's Craig who begs the question. Craig's actual response to Smith's argument, takes the form of Craig begging the question, by saying that Smith's argument must fail since Smith's argument would impy that Craig's position on divine causation is wrong:

""

Sixth, your appeal to authority is noted, and rejected. Deal with the substance of Smith's argument, instead of misrepresenting it as you currently are.

Wait, appeal to authority? You think that appealing to one of today's preeminent philosphers on a question of philosophy is a fallacious appeal to authority? That you don't think highly of him is neither here nor there.

Honestly, I really didn't think you were dumb enough to go there. I hoped you were just because I thought it would be hilarious, but I didn't think you actually would, so thanks for that.

Glancing through the rest of your post leads me to this baffling exchange:

You said that that what you claimed about God is meaningless:

"With this understanding of God -- that he does not have a past, present, or future but exists in an etneral "now" -- talking about him in temporal terms (i.e. as existing "before" the creation of the universe) doesn't make a bit of sense, and so your objection fails."

"Saying that God exists in an eternal "now" where past, present, and future are meaningless concepts is probably the closest we can get to describing a timeless being."

So your claims are meaningless and thus not worth taking seriously.

Are you really this dense? Do you genuinely not understand what is being said here? I mean... really? Because if so then it seems I've engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. When I entered this discussion, I just assumed you had a basic grasp of reading comprehension, but apparently I was wrong.

Moving on...

This was the actual structure of my point:

P ===> C or D
~C
~D
Therefore, ~P

That's formally valid. Deal with it.

I already dealt with it by pointing out that it's a false dilemma because you never allowed for the third possibility that somebody could legitimately challenge P as Craig has successfully done on a number of occasions (without begging the question!) and which you have utterly failed to address.

Oh, and thank you for pointing out that Quentin Smith has debated Craig, although I think "gotten his backside handed to him by Craig" is probably a more accurate description. And, no, Craig has not conflated logically necessary relationships with causal relationships.

Let's look again at Quentin's two arguments on behalf of atheism.

1. The first one, you remember, was that God cannot be the Creator of the universe because at each time in the history of the universe there is an infinite regress of causes that does not terminate; and so God cannot be the cause of this. Now I asked Quentin, what are these causes that you're talking about? I was surprised to hear from him in his last speech that these causes just are the elementary particles and that he apparently thinks of these as standing in some sort of hierarchical causal relations.

But surely that's incorrect. I mean, after all, if the universe is finite, then there will be a huge but finite number of elementary particles, and so ultimately you will have circular causation. And even if the universe were spatially infinite - which Quentin cannot prove, but which is what he would have to prove to show this regress is infinite - even then there's no reason to think that these causes are hierarchically arranged in the way that Quentin has suggested. So my skepticism about this first argument is simply to demand: how does he know that there is such an infinite series? I don't think that there is an infinite series of hierarchically arranged causes.

But secondly, and, I think, more fundamentally, my contingency argument doesn't presuppose a beginning of the universe. We can still ask: why are there any elementary particles at all, rather than just nothing? Anything that exists has an explanation for why it exists, either in its own nature or in an external cause. There's simply no reason in his theory why we should have this cluster of elementary particles in existence rather than non-being. So we need to have a metaphysically necessary being which will explain why there is something rather than nothing.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-...th-debate-2003

[tabibito]

Wait, appeal to authority? You think that appealing to one of today's preeminent philosphers on a question of philosophy is a fallacious appeal to authority? That you don't think highly of him is neither here nor there.

If you cite someone authoritative, you're appealing to authority. If you don't, you have no credible authority to refer to. It is impossible for YOU to have any worthwhile evidence. Q.E.D.