The universe does not necessarily require a cause

There are many reasons why I believe assuming a cause of the universe, is extremely speculative and infer many potential logical contradictions within the assumption itself. First you must ask yourself, what is causation? CausationWhat is Causation? Well, it seems that causation is a word we use to describe and explain an effect that applies to movementof parts within the universe through time. I mean, if a mountain formed, then it had a cause which occurred earlier in time (the Earth's plates pressing against each other causing the land to lift and fold overon itself). Another example, would be a ripple in a pond, someone may ask what caused that ripple? Maybe we wouldn't know, but our intuition would definitely let us know that it was the consequence of something which occurred earlier. Premise 1 of The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentThere is an argument called the Kalam Cosmological Argument which tries to make the bold and baselessassertion, that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Of course, it's not hard to see the errors in this premise, and it's implications. "Begins to exist"First of all, what does it really mean to "begin to exist"? Someone may say their car was "made", "created", or even "formed" in factory A, but I doubt they actually implied that that their car completely "began to exist" in Factory A. The I mean, all the rubber, steel, metal ect. existed earlier, and all that really happened was matter got rearranged and changed it's form within a flow of time. It seems that at the very least,there is some confusion on what it truly means to "begin to exist", and if it can truly be used to describe something other than the universe coming into being ex nihilo. "Everything. .. "Some people may say that they don't need to be omniscient to know that everything that "begins to exist"must have a cause, they know this on a priori grounds. Some may even say, the premise itself is self-evident. Well, this is false, and there are many philosophers who disagree with the idea that the premise is self-evident as well:"Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; somethingis self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading Theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I'vehad in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. " - Quentin Smith (American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. )[1]Uncaused events1) Radioactive atom decayRadioactive decay is the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles. The emission is spontaneous, in that the atom decays without any interaction with another particle from outside of the atom. [2]2) Scale-free density perturbationsSpontaneous creation of almost scale-free density perturbations in an inflationary universe occur. [3]Spon·ta·ne·ousAdjective: Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus. [4]Now, I'm sure that people will agree that if the universe requires a cause, it is from the "outside" or it is "external" to the universe itself. However, we know of many events at the sub-atomic level that operate without the assumption of causation, and are uncaused (without a trigger, or a reason why it happened at a certain time, or appeared at a certain location). "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. " - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [5]The Big BangThe Big Bang Theory describes the early development of the universe, from a singularity to the inflating and expanding universe you see today. Does it describe creatio ex nihilo? Not at all, there is nothing within The Big Bang Theory which indicates:(i) The singularity popped into existence from absolute nothingness, and then, the singularity expandedBut rather:(ii) The singularity expandedMaybe, in order for the singularity to have popped into existed from absolutely nothing, it must have had time to do so. However, for as long as the universe has existed, space-time has too according to the general consensus in modern cosmology. There simply is no earlier to the Planck Epoch (zero - 10-43 seconds), which is the earliest state of the universe. Since something seems to be caused if it is a consequence of that which occurred earlier, and there is no earlier to The Big Bang, then how could one boldly assume a cause of The Big Bang is necessary? Perhaps on the other hand, Alexander Vile kin’s model of cosmic origins [6] is correct (a model which infers the universe arising from a timeless empty geometry). This model describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (uncaused) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It's plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolveed according to the standard Big Bang model. Either way, some may infer some of type of simultaneous causation to combat my argument. So below, I will address this. Simultaneous CausationWilliam Lane Craig tries to address arguments like mine, by appealing to simultaneous causation:"For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling. .. They[Atheists] might say that even simultaneous causation presupposes time. Yes, the cause and effect occur at the same time. But then why couldn't such a causal dependency exist timelessly? " - William Lane Craig [7] The problem is that for simultaneous causation to have occurred, the causal dependency must have involved the "beginning of the existence" (assuming this line of wording is correct) of the chandelier, chain, and ceiling which occurred temporally prior to the effect in question. Also, other conditions which existed earlier to this simultaneous causation must have existed before the effect as well, thus, even simultaneous causation, assuming I accept simultaneous causation for the sake of argument, can only occur if it is the result of that which occurred earlier. So it appears that even the idea of a timeless causal dependency which causes it's effect in time, may not make much sense because even causal dependency presupposes a temporal duration in the past. Conclusion:There are good reasons to believe causation is spatio-temporal (or at least, requires space-time to exist), and good reasons to think causation only applies at the macroscopic level within the universe. Thus, there are no good reasons to think that a causal dependency can exist independently of the universe, or to think the idea is even logical for that matter. Sources: [1] . http://www.secularhumanism.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://prd.aps.org...[4] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[5] . http://atheism.about.com...[6] . http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com... [7] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...