The cosmologicl argument is false 2: Electric Boogaloo

Well fine, If you're going to waste time. What caused the First Cause? One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, While opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue. Critics often press that arguing for the First Cause's exemption raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt, Whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, Emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause. Secondly, It is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, Which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However, As to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, With the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. Not evidence for a theistic God The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a First Cause exists, Not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, Such as omniscience, Omnipotence, And omnibenevolence. This is why the argument is often expanded to show that at least some of these attributes are necessarily true, For instance in the modern Kalam argument given above. The existence of causal loops A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where traveling backward in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backward in time to a point before its own existence, And to then create itself, Thereby initiating everything which follows from it. The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, Physically, Or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems, ] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them. " The Existence of infinite causal chains David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:[26] If the existence of every member of a set is explained, The existence of that set is thereby explained. Big Bang cosmology Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler"DeWitt equation" (Carlo Rovelli). The Big Bang theory states that it is the point at which all dimensions came into existence, The start of both space and time. Then, The question "What was there before the Universe? " makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, And Beatrice Tinsley, Who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. However, Some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate causes for the Big Bang, Using such scenarios as the collision of membranes. Philosopher Edward Feser states that classical philosophers' arguments for the existence of God do not care about the Big Bang or whether the universe had a beginning. The question is not about what got things started or how long they have been going, But rather what keeps them going. Alternatively, The above objections can be dispelled by separating the Cosmological Argument from the A-Theory of Time[36] and subsequently discussing God as a timeless (rather than "before" in a linear sense) cause of the Big Bang. There is also a Big Bang Argument, Which is a variation of the Cosmological Argument using the Big Bang Theory to validate the premise that the Universe had a beginning.