The universe does not necessarily require a cause

Aristotle's "four causes"I am completely aware of Aristotle's "four causes", however I was referring to causation that is strictly independent of human brains (objective causation that we observe, that would be true even if we didn't observe them). "Hard work causes fitness" is still a physical causation anyway, because there are differences between the biology of a fit person (a hard working person), and unfit, lazy person (which would be a change form, or rearrangement of matter as I already alluded to). To elaborate: (i) The Material cause falls in line with my argument(ii) The formal cause infers an intention or planning, but this wouldn't be possible without humans brains, which carry the capacity to plan(iii) The Efficient cause falls in line with my argument(iv) The Final Cause infers a final purpose, but this is subjective, and thus, requires a human mind (and thus, a human brain). The Necessity of a Cause, and Time: Con claims that it is very necessary that the universe requires a cause, because with in the universe time is working (and with time you have to have a cause of the existence). However, this is a logical contradiction, because there cannot be a cause of time, if time is required for causation to exist in the first place. So it's safe to say, that the argument presented by my opponent is not very coherent to say the least. I will break down my opponent's syllogism, to demonstrate my point further. P1: "11. There can be no cause and effect unless there is time."This is most likely correct, however, this destroys your entire case. You are arguing for the existence of a timeless cause, but this cannot be true by your own premise here. If there can be no cause without time, then there can be no timeless cause of any kind (which falls in line with my argument). P2: "12. The universe has a cause"This is a contradiction to your first premise. If causation can only exist if time exists, then there can be no cause independent of time, and the cause of the universe (which would have to to be the cause of time) would be most likely independent of time. Thus, your entire argument fails miserably.If time is required for causation, then one could look at the universe as:(i) The set which contains all things which have causesOf course, there cannot be a cause, of the set which contains all things which have causes. This just brings us to Russell's Paradox (which shows the absurdities of including a set as part of itself). "Unless you can deny the universe of time you cant deny a cause." - yoda878This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated."Where there is time there has to be a cause that is a physic law." -yoda878This is clearly false. I even posted a quote from a Physicist speaking about uncaused events in physics in my last round, so it's clear my opponent does not plan on engaging much of what I had to say in the last round. Just because time is needed for causation, that doesn't mean that uncaused events cannot happen in time. This is a clear non-sequitur. "We may not know the cause but we know the first cause necessarily had to happen we are here, is here so there was a cause. Otherwise if there was not a cause there is not you, there is nothing. To take the cause away is just silly. But it would be nice a pleasant to think." - yoda878Actually, you admitted inadvertently, that the universe could have no cause. If time is required for cause and effect relation ships, then there could be no relationship between a timeless cause and an effect in time (this would be contradictory to the first premise of your syllogism). It seems (with all due respect), that your entire rebuttal was an utter failure. you failed to address my "untriggered events" point from Quantum Mechanics and my "earlier in time" argument.So, due to the fact that your response was self-defeating and you dodged many of my contentions, it's safe to say that your refutation can be dismissed.Continuing My Case: David Hume's Definition of Causation "Contiguity in time and place is therefore a requisite circumstance to the operation of all causes...Priority in time is...another requisite circumstance in every case.... third circumstance [is] that of constant conjunction betwixt the cause and the effect. Every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect. Beyond these three circumstances of contiguity, priority, and constant conjunction I can discover nothing in this cause." - David Hume [1]However, a cause of time would be timeless. This definitely does not fall in line with Hume's definition of causation (which is the most famous and influential definition of a cause). Continuing My Case: When could an event, logically be considered an event with a cause?I would personally argue:P1: x has a cause, if x is a consequence of that which occurs earlier to xP2: There was no earlier to The Big Bang, the Planck Epoch (0 to 10−43 seconds) was the earliest periodP3: The universe could not have been a consequence of that which occurred earlier to the universeC: The universe is not something which had a cause Remember, even simultaneous causation should still have causal dependencies which must be in place temporally prior to the "simultaneous causation"in question. Thus, even if I accepted simultaneous causation, it would in no way jeopardize the first premise. Conclusion: 1. My opponent's refutations were self-defeating, and she didn't even address many of my main points 2. I logically demonstrated, that it's not necessary for the universe to have been caused. Source(s):[1] http://www.infidels.org...