PaulK writes:
The point is that IF there is no time prior to our universe, we have good grounds to question whether it needs a cause —
If there is no time prior to our universe then we have grounds to question whether it
can have a cause given that there is no time for that cause to exist in. I do not see why it gives reason to question the
need for a cause.
You are saying that because a cause could not, logically, have existed it must not have been needed. You are saying this after observing 13.7 billion yrs worth of causes and effects. I am saying that after observing 13.7 b yrs worth of causes and effects that the cause was, logically, needed and therefore must have existed.
I balk at the idea of something existing without a cause. This is a natural reticence. That is to say that it was caused by my experience of the universe. Not really all that absurd. I have no proof, I suppose, that everything needs a cause. I have no proof that every time I drop an apple that it will fall to the ground as I have not dropped all the apples yet but I certainly have a substantial amount of support for the notion. Every causeless thing in history was beyond our experience until it wasn’t. What is absurd is saying that because you can’t see how a cause could have functioned that it therefore must not have existed or, worse, was not needed.
Just to be clear, I invoke no gods.
(abe; If we conclude here that there was no need for a cause of the universe, should we stop looking for one?)
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.