As far as we know, the universe began with a planck radius and events at the planck scale are random (i.e. a-causal), so the claim that 'the universe has a first cause' is, at best, inconsistent with contemporary scientific cosmology.While the naturalist claims that the things that exist in the natural world are consistent, they fail to acknowledge the inconsistency with the first cause of the universe. — Ishika
It's a definition, not a "natural law", of an "effect" that it has at least one "cause". We naturalists, partiicularly of the scientific persuasion, use the term event instead due to the fact of the orders of magnitude predominance of random events in (excitations of) planck-scale fields over non-planck-scale (classical) phenomena such as (e g.) particle interactions and vacuum fluctuations.It is a natural law that every cause has an effect, so the naturalist must affirm that.
This is not true. Re: quantum gravity. Besides, all of the demonstable evidence in cosmology and astrophysics supports models that "the universe was not created"(e.g. has higher than predicted structural complexity in the early observable universe).Yet, they fail to provide a theory that is consistent with the natural law for how the world was initially created.
I can't refute this nostrum any more succinctly than Galileo did over four centures ago ...The initial cause, according to theists, is God.
The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.