There is no external cause of the universe

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.P2. The explanation of the universe is either in its necessity or an external cause. P3. The universe is not eternal or necessary; therefore it has an external cause. The Origin of the Universe Does it exist due to necessity and it eternally exists or it is contingent and finite? Typically devout atheists have always believed that the universe exists eternally due to necessity of its own nature, and even today various dogmatic new-atheist physicists are hell bent in denying the finite origin of the universe by all possible dishonest means.This stand-off persisted unaltered until 1917, the year in which Albert Einstein made a cosmological application of his newly discovered General Theory of Relativity. To his chagrin, he found that GTR would not permit a static model of the universe unless he introduced into his gravitational field equations a certain "fudge factor" L in order to counterbalance the gravitational effect of matter. Einstein's universe was balanced on a razor's edge, however, and the least perturbation would cause the universe either to implode or to expand. By taking this feature of Einstein's model seriously, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre were able to formulate independently in the 1920s solutions to the field equations which predicted an expanding universe.The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable." But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies, which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science. "Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries," exclaims John Wheeler, "was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?"Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...The universe is not eternal The philosophical conclusions against past eternal universe through impossibility of infinity has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split-second of the universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state out of which our universe may have evolved—which some scientific popularizations have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had a beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a much grander “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have a beginning.Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...It seems Pro already agrees that actual infinity is impossible, however he thinks the cosmological singularity is controversial and problematic. This is not true. See the interesting discussion by Barrow and Tipler [1988], pp. 31-34, in which they explain that since we have no tested theory of quantum gravitation to supersede General Relativity nor any observational evidence for the existence of matter fields which violate the strong or weak energy conditions, the initial cosmological singularity has not been eliminated. In fact, they point out that the finiteness of the action in Friedman models is due to the cosmological singularities. "Thus in general there is a trade-off between space-time singularities: a singularity in the action is avoided only at the price of a singularity in curvature invariants, and vice versa. In cosmology some sort of singularity seems inevitable" (pp. 32-33).Pro says in his P3 “If every state of the universe has a causal explanation with reference to another state, then there is no state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe”.It seems that this premise commits a logical fallacy, which is the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of equating the property of a part of a thing to the whole thing. It is saying that because a thing’s parts have a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that property. For example, if would be like saying that because every little part of an elephant is light in weight, therefore the whole elephant is light in weight. That is obviously a fallacy. Every little piece of an elephant that you might pick might be light in weight, but that doesn’t imply that the elephant as a whole is light in weight. The fallacy of composition is ascribing the property of a part to the whole.In fact his first premise also begs the question, it is circular reasoning "Every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state".This premise somehow indirectly assumes the universe to be past eternal. The actual principle of sufficient causation is “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.” Every state of the universe is not caused by a previous state, in fact prior to the initial condition, the universe did not even exist altogether. The quantum fluctuation or empty space was not past eternal but had an absolute beginning.Well, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem requires it. Vilenkin says, “A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. . . . The only assumption we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value. . . . This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.” What the quantum vacuum is is a roiling sea of energy. It is not nothing. As Dr. Krauss himself has said, “By ‘nothing,’ I don’t mean nothing. . . . Nothing isn’t nothing anymore in physics.” Empty space is not empty. “Nothing is really a bubbling, boiling brew of virtual particles.” There’s no classical time and space in the point from which the universe originates, but it is still something, and Vilenkin, who also has a quantum tunneling model, recognizes this. Vilenkin says the initial state from which the universe evolves is not nothing: “I understand that a universe of zero radius is not necessarily the same thing as no universe at all.” There’s a three-geometry that evolves through quantum tunneling into our space time; it’s not nothing. James Sinclair, a cosmologist, says, “This approach still does not solve the problem of creation. Rather it has moved the question back one step to the initial, tiny, closed, and meta-stable universe. This universe state can have existed for only a finite time. Where did it come from?” Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...In conclusion, the universe has to have an external cause of its existence. It cannot create itself, as it would be logical absurdity. We have good grounds to believe finite beginning of the universe from mathematical, philosophical and scientific evidences. Thus it is far more reasonable to believe there is an external cause of the universe.