Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Do you agree with this or not?
Answer by Freela at 10:14 AM on Sep. 10, 2009
Answer by writeon at 9:19 AM on Sep. 10, 2009
Answer by IhartU at 9:21 AM on Sep. 10, 2009
Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 12:25 PM on Sep. 10, 2009
Answer by nysa00 at 12:48 PM on Sep. 10, 2009
I think it falls apart in the first sentence. They are assuming everything has a cause and perhaps it doesn't!
Actually, it doesn't say everything has a cause it says everything that begins to exist has a cause. So it's not saying there's some universal law which says, ' everything needs a cause' but os based on the "principle of sufficient reason". Which is the idea that everything must have sufficient reason for its existence. Things can have that reason in themselves or outside of themselves. Those things which have the reason in themselves are self-sufficient (necessary) beings. When something has a reason outside of itself, it is caused (a contingent being). In fact, that is exactly what a 'reason outside of itself' is-- a cause.
Answer by eringobrough at 2:48 PM on Sep. 10, 2009
Answer by eringobrough at 2:55 PM on Sep. 10, 2009