There is no external cause of the universe

From Pro's P4 it is clear that by “previous state” he means “previous state of the universe”. Thus if we are to elaborate his premises to make them clearer, it would go like following:P 1: Every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state [of universe]. P 2: If every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state [of universe], then every state of the universe has a causal explanation with reference to another state [of universe]. P 3: 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. P 4: An external cause of the universe can only exist if there is a state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe. C: By P3 and P4, The universe has no external cause.It cannot go unnoticed for anyone reading this argument that it is mere tautology. It literally means that the universe has been a chain of infinite regress of these states, thus it is eternal and infinite. Therefore it concludes there is no external cause of the universe but it is eternal and self-existing out of the necessity of its nature. He albeit thinks that his argument accepts the finite beginning of the universe which is possible only if he is assuming the initial state of universe prior to absolute or physical birth of spacetime to be static and infinite. I have explained that the state of universe prior to expansion was not infinite but that too had an absolute finite beginning. Pro says that he disagrees with physical interpretation of singularity theorem but it is irrelevant. Since he accepts the finite beginning of space and time (T < 13.9 bn years), and claim that there the universe always existed in some state. It follows that in some point of state the universe began to expand with spacetime and matter. Spacetime had a finite beginning but the universe did not.If he however argues inconsistently that time had an absolute beginning but still due to every state of time being half open, it is somehow always half-open having no first state, therefore the state of universe has no first state. It is not true,Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems "led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang. (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.) It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."Whatever Friedmann's solutions have to say about the future of the universe, their most unexpected and intriguing aspect is the presence of the initial singularity—the big bang, where the mathematics of general relativity breaks down. At the singularity, matter is compressed to infinite density, and the solutions cannot be extended to earlier times. Thus, taken literally, the big bang should be interpreted as the beginning of the universe" - Alex Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes", page 24We can see from evidence. Singularity theorem is not depended upon general relativity. I am sure Pro assumes the initial condition of the universe which had zero-dimension and infinite density to be static and eternal. That is what the quantum vacuum state from which the universe evolved in its physical shape and form. I quoted earlier that the Alex Borde Guth theorem could not possibly be eternal and static but that too had a boundary. Scientists agree that the initial condition prior to time Planck is non-physical, that does not mean it was static and eternal, self-existent and necessary.If one believes that the universe suddenly popped into being from the quantum vacuum state, which literally means in other words that the universe created itself. From where did the vacuum state universe came into being? Did it create itself or exists necessarily.His argument seems to presuppose eternal self-existent uncaused universe which affirms the premise that every state of universe is caused by previous state. Thus he may agree to the finite beginning of physical state but begs the question how come the non-physical quantum vacuum state have been eternal and infinite? Only then the universe would have no external cause.He attacks my phrasing of the principle of sufficient reasoning as I called it sufficient causation to use his own formulation of his premises instead of “sufficient reason”, which is quite irrelevant. He has also made a great deal of attacking the way I cited or quoted the source, accusing me of plagiarism, despite my citing the link. That is unnecessary red herring. I have quoted the Reasonable Faith website in order that all would freely read the sources and study themselves if they want to check the quoted sources. It would also help the readers gain some insight for the topics. Let me ignore all those red herring allegations which are made to distract from his refuted argument. The reason why the argument of Pro is circular is because he simply misunderstands or outright denies the principle of sufficient reason or cause. He denies the universe has external explanation, yet he refuses to give any reason why it just exists for the necessity of its own nature. The truth about the cause of universe can be stated this way: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.I have shown the explanation of universe is not in the necessity of its own nature. It is not eternal but contingent. The standard Big Bang model does not assume a static quantum vacuum state prior to the physical spacetime inflationary state; that is confirmed by modern cosmology evidence especially from Borde Guth Theorem. It follows logically that the universe has an external cause. We have positive reasons for believing the universe is not eternal but have a boundary and finite beginning. We have no good reasons to believe that it is eternal or existing out of its own necessity. In fact all Pro has done is to obfuscate the initial conditional and physical inflationary condition without any single positive evidence in support of the necessity of the nature of universe. Until he does that, I think we have great reasons to believe