The universe does not necessarily require a cause

I will await your case, thank you for making the debate.

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?

Causation

What is Causation?

Well, it seems that causation is a word we use to describe and explain an effect that applies to movement
of 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 over
on 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 Argument

There is an argument called the Kalam Cosmological Argument which tries to make the bold and baseless
assertion, 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; something
is 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've
had 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 events

1) Radioactive atom decay

Radioactive 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 perturbations

Spontaneous creation of almost scale-free density perturbations in an inflationary universe occur. [3]

Spon·ta·ne·ous
Adjective: 

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 Bang

The 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 expanded

But rather:

(ii) The singularity expanded

Maybe, 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 Causation

William 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]

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.

Pro asked
First of all, what does it really mean to "begin to exist"?

The material cause is the physical matter, the mass of "raw material" of which something is "made" (of which it consists).
The formal cause tells us what, by analogy to the plans of an artisan, a thing is intended and planned to be.
The efficient cause is that external entity from which the change or the ending of the change first starts.
The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists, or is done - including both purposeful and instrumental actions. The final cause, or telos, is the purpose, or end, that something is supposed to serve.
Additionally, things can be causes of one another, reciprocally causing each other, as hard work causes fitness, and vice versa - although not in the same way or by means of the same function: the one is as the beginning of change, the other is as its goal. (Thus Aristotle first suggested a reciprocal or circular causality - as a relation of mutual dependence, action, or influence of cause and effect.) Also; Aristotle indicated that the same thing can be the cause of contrary effects - as its presence and absence may result in different outcomes. In speaking thus he formulated what currently is ordinarily termed a "causal factor," e.g., atmospheric pressure as it affects chemical or physical reactions.

It is very necessary that the universe requires a cause, because with in the universe time is working. With time you have to have a cause of the existence.
Let me explain-
Physics, Einstein and scientists around the world have concluded that we live in a space-time continuum.
11. There can be no cause and effect unless there is time.
12. The universe has a cause.
13. Therefore the universe has a beginning in time.
14. The universe cannot have a beginning in its own time dimension.
15. Therefore the universe has a beginning in a time dimension independent of and preexistent to its own time dimension.

unless you can deny the universe of time you cant deny a cause.

Where there is time there has to be a cause that is a physic law.
In common usage, causality is also the relationship between a set of factors (causes) and a phenomenon (the effect). Anything that affects an effect is a factor of that effect. A direct factor is a factor that affects an effect directly, that is, without any intervening factors. (Intervening factors are sometimes called "intermediate factors".) The connection between a cause(s) and an effect in this way can also be referred to as a causal nexus.

It is important to understand this - In the world of sensible things; we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known ... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of it; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go to infinity, because . . . the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.

We may not know the cause but we know the first cause necessarily had to happen we are here, is here so there was a cause. Otherwise if there was not a cause there is not you, there is nothing. To take the cause away is just silly. But it would be nice a pleasant to think.
Everything that we experience has countless factors that have contributed to its potential right now. But before that, beyond that which holds up our entire universe as we know it in our mind, is the supreme or ultimate reality.

http://www.c4id.org.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

You were arguing me a few weeks ago on time and no time and cause and effect and thought I had a gottcha… Looks like you have changed your views. So I'm ganna have to do the best I can with this.

Pro says-
P1: "11. There can be no cause and effect unless there is time."

This is most likely correct; however, this destroys your entire case. You are arguing for the existence of a timeless cause, but this cannot be true by your own premise here. If there can be no cause without time, then there can be no timeless cause of any kind (which falls in line with my argument).
Very good observation now let me copy and paste from my first argument.
11. There can be no cause and effect unless there is time.
12. The universe has a cause.
13. Therefore the universe has a beginning in time.
14. The universe cannot have a beginning in its own time dimension.
15. Therefore the universe has a beginning in a time dimension independent of and preexistent to its own time dimension.

Pro says-
This is clearly false. I even posted a quote from a Physicist speaking about uncaused events in physics in my last round, so it's clear my opponent does not plan on engaging much of what I had to say in the last round. Just because time is needed for causation, that doesn't mean that uncaused events cannot happen in time. This is a clear non-sequitur.
Here is the Quote-
"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."
Adams are timeless, that exist in time, so this does not change that there was a begging of time.

Wes Morriston (Prof. of Philosophy at the University of Colorado) has pointed out that "something 
couldn't come from nothing" (this referring to absolute nothingness) is ascribing a conditional power 
to “nothing.” Saying that something couldn't come from nothing, would be to imply that nothing has the 
property of "prevention power" (the power to prevent something from coming from it). However, 
"nothing" should have no properties, including the power to prevent something from coming from it.  
To say "something couldn't come from nothing" is to say that "nothing" prevents the existence of 
something. The problem is, that it is difficult to say why nothing would have such a conditional power. 
Surely it makes more sense to say that nothing has no powers at all, including the power to prevent 
something. [1]

Many Physicists (such as Victor Stenger) have claimed that what we would think of as "nothing" (no 
mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing) would theoretically be 
unstable (this is not to be confused with "absolute nothingness"). Simpler systems spontaneously give 
rise to complex systems in nature, and "nothing" is assimple as it gets. [2]

You could never continue to have "nothing" in this context.

In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes phase transition to something more 
complicated in nature, like a universe containing matter. The transition from what we would call nothing 
to something, would need no external cause.

As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there 
something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.” [2]


Now, simple systems are unstable and spontaneously form into more complex ones, and this is what we 
see in nature. The least complex system we could possible imagine is "nothing" (even calling it a system 
makes it not "nothing" anymore, this is how unstable it is). Theoretical models such as the inflationary 
model of the early universe bear this out. Many simple systems are unstable in nature, that is, have limited 
lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy (like 
what we see with snowflakes). Since “nothing” is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be 
completely stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes a spontaneous 
phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition from 
what we would call "nothing" (even if it is not, "absolutely nothingness" to something), requires no 
external agent or cause.
 

I would like to thank my opponent for his research and devotion to this topic.
Pro said- Oh ya, that's right, you asserted that atoms are timeless in time, which I'm not sure makes much sense in the context the Theists use to describe the "cause of the universe" as timeless.
I wasn't arguing God.
But I can -
Closing arguments-

But let me ask you, you say that things can just begin to exist? No cause at all?
They just out of nowhere are here? Nothing caused everything we have?
If nothing caused the universe then where did all the stuff come from?
If you asked me, this shows and proves creation. Things that just begin to exist would prove Creation. Scientist have longed to prove that everything has a cause and the cause was not God. The only way they could prove this is that everything that is here had a cause.
Let's, just look here and think about this a minute, If the universe didn't have a cause then, you couldn't really argue Creation with high expectation. If things can just begin to exist as would be necessary for no cause. Then you could not necessarily argue Creation. That would still show a cause that God would be the cause.
Now with this, I am not and do not have to prove God, I'm just showing how If there is no cause and things just begin to exist that you can't necessarily rule out Creation.