Does not the argument from universal causation presuppose the existence of a creator deity?

A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:





1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.


2.A causal loop cannot exist.


3.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


4.Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.


According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.





In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was set forth by William Lane Craig[7]):





1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.


2.The Universe began to exist.


3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.





In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist).[8] In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an Uncaused Cause,[9] Aquinas further said: "...and this we understand to be God."[10]





Aquinas's argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.





The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[11





Inspired by Ren.|||People can sit around thinking about anything, and even attempt to draw conclusions. However, all this is invalid without empirical testing of the real world. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It just stops you from asking more questions.





There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy -- via natural processes.





I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”





For more, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.





"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."


— Isaac Asimov


--|||Hahaa!





Perfect! =D|||It presupposes that someone gives a crap about this sort of mental masturbation.