The first cause argument for God is invalid

His two arguments have to do with the notion of causality. His first is deductive and next is an inductive one from a singularity. Deductive Causal Argument Pro states that since time is a forward progress of events a caused first state of time is incoherent. Because causes precede effects. The problem with this argument is that cause and effect can happen in a simultaneous manner. For instance, the chandelier’s cause of it hanging in the air is the chain and ceiling. This effect and its cause are simultaneous in time, yet the chandelier hanging is caused. Another example is from quantum entanglement. When you measure the spin of one entangled particle and discover its spin is up, then you know the other entangled particle is spin down. The cause of the second particle’s spin (measurement) is simultaneous with its effect (a -½ spin). The cause of the universe can be simultaneous with its effect removing this problem. Inductive Causal Argument There are three problems with this argument I will point out. First, this only would refute a scientific justification of premise one. The physical laws of causality may not apply, but this says nothing about the philosophical justification. Scientifically, it may be possible for an uncaused cause, but premise one is based on the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. An effect can’t have nothing as a cause. It may be possible in the scientific realm, but philosophically, P1 still holds. Second, it is wrong to think of the singularity as an ontological existing thing. But a mathematical conception, whose ontological status is the same as nothing. A singularity has no time, no space, and no physics. This hardly qualifies as an existing physical thing. As William Lane Craig said That is to say, the singularity has no positive ontological status: as one traces the cosmic expansion back in time, the singularity represents the point at which the universe ceases to exist. It is not part of the universe, but represents the point at which the time reversed contracting universe vanishes into non-being. .. Just as there is no first fraction, so there is no first state of the universe. The initial singularity is thus the ontological equivalent of nothing. The breakdown of the laws of physics and the attendant unpredictability is perspicuous in light of the fact that nothingness possesses no physics. .. Simply put, an object that has no spatial dimensions and no temporal duration hardly seems to qualify as a physical object at all, but is rather a mathematical conceptualization [1] Physicist Dr. Gustavo Romero agrees. He states …. there are no physical space-time singularities. There cannot be, neither. Singularities are not physical entities, but limits of our ways of representing the world. There is no shame in that. [2] The third problem is the idea of a singularity existing at the beginning of the universe. One huge problem with this idea is that it doesn’t take quantum mechanics into consideration. Hawking who was one of the creators of the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem said It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account. [3] The idea that there was a singularity is based on general relativity. Physicist Sean Carroll commented on this saying "It's going to be wrong, because it doesn't take into account quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics is certainly going to be important once you get to that place in the history of the universe. " [4] Thanks, back to Pro. [1] Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith. Atheism, Theism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, p.227 [2] . http://arxiv.org... [3] . http://sqentropy.dyndns.org... [4] . http://www.space.com...