In the typical incivility that regular pro-ID commenters get away with on Uncommon Descent, StephenB says,
“Witness the recent spectacle of highly honored scientists who claim, with triumphant stupidity, that a universe can come into existence without a cause.”
Is this a reasonable statement? Let’s evaluate it and try to find out.
1) According to StephenB and others who reason like him, the universe must have had a cause.
2) Since at some point, you would run out of causes as you go back into time, there must have been a first cause, which for some completely unknown reason, required no cause at all.
Let’s think about that. A “first cause” entity, sitting in a timeless void, but requiring no cause to exist, absolute proof that it is possible for some things to exist without being caused. How many others are there? We have our “first cause” entity, but there is nothing stopping any other entity from existing either. Can our “first cause” entity stop other entities from existing?
The answer, sadly for StephenB and his followers, is no. There is no “time” to stop any other entity since time does not exist yet, nothing does except any other entity that does not require a cause. How many could there be? An uncountable number, since according to StephenB, the universe or anything that could place limits on anything else, doesn’t exist yet!
Could the universe itself be an uncaused cause? Sure it can, because nothing would predate it including other entities or gods. Nothing can exist before our uncaused entity, including other uncaused entities, because there literally is no “time”, within which to stop it. This means that no entity can prevent the existence of another.
Is StephenB reasonable? Yes. His flaw is in feeding unfounded assertions, such as, “There is only one first cause”, into his logic.
He provides a great example of how ID fails at science, and badly.