New Argument (Hope it works)

[Arberian]

1)Everything which begins to exist is either caused or uncaused.
--->The Beginning of Existence is an action.
--->Therefore it is logical to think that they are either caused or uncaused.
2)If things which begin to exist have no cause for their beginning(nothing caused them to begin),they must not have begun to exist.
3)C:Therefore everything which begins to exist has a cause. (Since something which begins to exist, must begin to exist (2))

All these arguments follow deductive reasoning therefore the conclusions logically follow.

I want to know if this argument works or not. Thank you for the support in advance. (Hope it works for everything that begins to exist)

I am trying to prove that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

(Please note that the second premise and the third premise are assumptions based on logic. They are not conclusions. The third premise bring us to something illogical , therefore the second premise is also illogical which helps us deal with the first premise as it is needed.)

Terms used:
Cause-something which gives rise to an action
Uncaused- nothing gives rise to an action
something(existent)-nothing(non existent)

[SoulForge]

1)Things which begin to exist are either caused or uncaused.
2)If something which begins to exist has no cause, nothing caused it to begin to exist.
3)If something which begins to exist has no cause , it did not begin to exist.
4)Something which begins to exist must begin to exist.
5)C:Therefore something which begins to exist has a cause.
6)C:Therefore all things which begin to exist have a cause.

All these arguments follow deductive reasoning therefore the conclusions logically follow.

I want to know if this argument works or not. Thank you for the support in advance.

Works for what?

[Arberian]

Works for what?

For everything that begins to exist...

[Moralgy]

Works for what?

The existence of Odin.

[Arberian]

The existence of Odin.

I never asserted such an absurd a preposition.

[Jonnusthegreat]

2) Just because something has no cause doesn't mean something didn't cause it.

[Arberian]

2) Just because something has no cause doesn't mean something didn't cause it.

No cause- NOTHING CAUSED IT-absence of causality

The (2) premise is an assumption (IF) .

[Tierbook]

No cause- NOTHING CAUSED IT-absence of causality

So we don't exist? Because the Big Bang came from somewhere

[StayTuned]

3)If something which begins to exist has no cause , it did not begin to exist.

I don't get it, you have to elaborate this one

You assert that something is already in existence, but then you deny it's existence

[Arberian]

So we don't exist? Because the Big Bang came from somewhere

I guess I need to add some explanations to the argument . Update in 2 mins.

- - - Updated - - -

3)If something which begins to exist has no cause , it did not begin to exist.

I don't get it, you have to elaborate this one

You assert that something is already in existence, but then you deny it's existence

Updated the Thread. The third premise is an assumption.

[AeneasBK]

2)If something which begins to exist has no cause, nothing caused it to begin to exist.

This is just a clarification of one of the options in step 1.

3)If something which begins to exist has no cause , it did not begin to exist.

As a result if "nothing caused it to exist" it can be deduced that it did not begin to exist.

You can therefore reduce the original set of {things that begin to exist which are caused, things that begin to exist which are uncaused} to just {things that begin to exist which are caused}

You can therefore deduce that any one thing that exists has a cause

You can therefore deduce that all things that exist have a cause.

Right?

[Tierbook]

So the Big Bang never began and nothing caused it?

[AeneasBK]

So the Big Bang never began and nothing caused it?

One would think this proves the opposite. That the Big Bang must have existed and something must have caused it.

[Arberian]

This is just a clarification of one of the options in step 1.



As a result if "nothing caused it to exist" it can be deduced that it did not begin to exist.

You can therefore reduce the original set of {things that begin to exist which are caused, things that begin to exist which are uncaused} to just {things that being to exist which are caused}

You can therefore deduced that any one thing that exists was has a cause

You can therefore deduce that all things that exist have a cause.

You made a wrong conclusion.
I am talking about "things which begin to exist" ; not things "which are eternal and changeless" .

If Universe is eternal (in the past) --> It is uncaused.
If Universe is not eternal (in the past) --> It is caused.

[apepi]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing, for when I don't know what justice is, I'll hardly know whether it is a kind of virtue or not, or whether a person who has it is happy or unhappy." ~ Socrates

[AeneasBK]

You made a wrong conclusion.
I am talking about "things which begin to exist" ; not things "which are eternal and changeless" .

If Universe is eternal (in the past) --> It is uncaused.
If Universe is not eternal (in the past) --> It is caused.

Nope, you lost me

[Revi]

If I'm getting it right it boils down to

-Things which begin to exist must be either caused or uncaused
-Things that are uncaused will not begin to exist
Therefore, everything that has come to exist is caused.

Is that right?

[Arberian]

Nope, you lost me

I understood the first part ofc.

But you added these words:
"You can therefore deduced that any one thing that exists was has a cause

You can therefore deduce that all things that exist have a cause."

[StayTuned]

You made a wrong conclusion.
I am talking about "things which begin to exist" ; not things "which are eternal and changeless" .

If Universe is eternal (in the past) --> It is uncaused.
If Universe is not eternal (in the past) --> It is caused.

If the universe is indeed eternal, we will never understand it. Our brain is bound by what is physically possible. If something goes beyond the nature of our brain, our brain can naturally not comprehend it

That's why I believe we will never understand what was before the big bang.

And thus, any try to understand it, is moot.

[Arberian]

If I'm getting it right it boils down to

-Things which begin to exist must be either caused or uncaused
-Things that are uncaused will not begin to exist
Therefore, everything that has come to exist is caused.

Is that right?

Absolutely right. That is what I want to prove.
But remember things which come into being are always caused.

If Universe began to exist. It must have a cause.
If Universe is eternal(timeless) and changeless. It is uncaused.