The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[William]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

[William]

[Replying to William in post #10]

HOW YHVH CAME TO BE

The story starts with Christ (re the mythology) which represents the mind which occupied (was) the singularity from which the (current) universe came forth (had a beginning).
From Christ’s perspective, there was a prior existence (universe) from which the current universe followed on from and one prior to that one, and eventually another one will follow on from this – the current one.)
In that, the Christ-Mind has always existed and has always created and re-created – eternally. (the creations are temporal – the creator-mind (“Christ” re that mythology) is permanent.

(The Following is a list of word-strings which have the same numerical value.)
Future Selves
Divine Purpose
Invisible Wings
Lordy! Do I Have To?
The Movie Contact
Wizard Forums
“Our Shaman Elders”
Self-development
Collective Soul
A word in edgeways
Element One Fifteen
Self-Immurement
Free range morons?
How YHVH came to be.

In the language of space-time, the singularity is a long way from what the universe became (currently).
Functional Forms (Galaxies) produced ways in which the Christ-Mind could interact with said FF’s and literally “be the mind” of any such forms said mind choses to occupy.
The Christ-mind emerges through the functional forms as they develop within the Galaxy, and re our locality, slowly emerges from those forms into individual self-aware entities, intimately involved with their (particular) functional forms, specific to said-locality, through the sun (Sol) and the planets.
Suffice to say, this journey of the Christ-mind from the One to the Many re the singularity produced “gods” which have specific roles and experiences – all related (re the Universe) and all unique (as evidenced through observing).
Essentially the Christ-mind fragmented and in doing so, dispersed throughout the functional forms which resulted from the singularity, and does so in real time.
To what degree the forms inhibit the individualised minds from knowledge of their source (Christ - what they were before they became the minds of Galaxies, Stars, Planets, et al) is unknown to us humans, but we do know that our functional forms do indeed suppress any knowledge of prior existence, thus we do not know what we are, why we are here or where we are going or why our forms suppress such knowledge
Along the way, our stories (mythologies) develop as a means of trying to “explain” “why”, resulting in various religious institutions, which themselves developed from far older human sources (animalism/paganism et al) and along with these mythologies, developed the idea of a supposed “supernatural” thing where all gods and other mythological entities resided “outside” the universe the One overall God created.
Thus “Christ” was developed through that human process as a means to try and understand (in strictly human ways), those things we did not understand about our selves and our situation, and was given a human face/form (as are all such gods of human imaginings) thus – alongside many others “Jesus” becomes one of those human-imagined gods, and is proclaimed “God over all gods” as a means of directing human minds toward the understanding that all come from the One Source Mind.
This message is still not fully integrated into the collective human consciousness but has arguably helped humans overall with coming to terms with their uniqueness (as individuals) and their collective identity (as coming from a singularity/singular mind.)

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #139]

The first 3 premises of what I am arguing truly are:



1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning

2. The universe (i.e., all spatio-temporal matter/energy) began to exist

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.



So, if you want to disagree with me, you have to disagree with those premises, not the ones you offered as what I’m arguing.

No. As I pointed out, while you claim you are auguring from those particular premises, you have had to change the wording.



In changing the wording, you have changed the premises and are now arguing from those changed premises.

You are correct that the non-natural nature of this cause isn’t in the first 3 premises. It does come prior to arguments for the personal nature of that cause, but for some reason in my head I formulated that as coming in the first 3 premises. That was wrong. However, it’s still not an assumption, but logical analysis. The cause of all natural things logically cannot be natural itself because self-causation is logically impossible.

No - as I pointed out, the material causation of functional forms is not "self caused" just because it was caused by the Uncaused.

The cause of the Uncaused material forming into any temporal universe is logically possible (as I have shown in many posts here in this message board, including those in this thread) if there is no distinction made between the mind and the matter. Since there is no necessity to treat mind as "non-physical", the distinction is fictional, and thus any logic derived from that path, has come about through a fictional assumption rather than from fact, and as such, only appears logical once the changes in the premises are made/once the premises are added to.

As to your explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural, you are just explaining what your conclusion is, not explaining the reasoning that gets one to that conclusion.

What "explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural"? Why make a comment about what I supposedly explained is simply a conclusion without explanation as to why the conclusion was made? Why not use the "quote" function provided to show the reader what it is you are otherwise simply implying I am doing/have done?

As to your explanation of why natural things can’t have non-natural effects (or vice versa), your reasoning simply isn’t good. Your statement that human beings have no non-natural effects, even if true, doesn’t prove this because there could be non-human natural things that could have non-natural effects.

My statement is true. If you believe my argument isn't true, on what basis and what counter-argument do you base your critique on? There cannot be a basis for prioritizing an unknown non-human natural thing which "could" have "non natural effects", because - as was pointed out - human beings are a sufficient example of that which is part of the universe (natural) and what they produce naturally from natural resources without ever having to resort to being enabled doing such "because of Santa's little helpers" or any such other thing which "could" have happened.



Even if we accept that "God and the Angels" are mythological metaphor for Aliens, (Extraterrestrial not extra-natural/supernatural) we still have to assume the natural logic that whatever amazing evidence they could show us, would necessarily have to be considered natural/naturally devised or otherwise prove that they are not.



Therefore, until such evidence for the existence of a supernatural First Cause is shown, it is logical to assume that the Uncaused First Cause, is natural, and everything which derives from said source is also natural.

Now, of course, this isn’t an argument for natural things definitely being able to have non-natural effects (or vice versa), but that doesn’t mean the default is that they don’t.

Yes it does. That is exactly what it means. The default has to be that the Uncaused Cause has to be Primarily Natural. Fundamentally so. The Primary Natural Source of all else that is (also) natural, even if such creations are only temporary.



One might argue that since a temporal universe is - by its nature - temporary and "therefore" "natural" and from this premise declare that this means the Uncaused Cause is therefore "supernatural" (because it is eternal) such reasoning is cart before the horse and thus not logical.



Even that one argues that a temporal creation must be referred to as a "natural creation" in order to then declare that a supernatural creator must have created it, one has to avoid admitting the referring to an temporal thing as "natural" is misplaced/illogical because the better argument is that IF the Uncaused is Natural (and it must be since it has always existed) THEN anything the

Uncaused creates that which is temporal (not eternal) would at least first have to be seen (in comparison) as "unnatural or non natural", so there is still no requirement to conjure any fictional concept as "super" natural and claim it is the logical conclusion which flows from the 3 premises being discussed.

To shift the burden on your opponent to prove your view wrong is just that: shifting the burden, which is fallacious reasoning. You have claimed that the effect must be the same ‘stuff’ as the cause. Support that positive claim.

I have not shifted any burden as I am simply pointing out how supernaturalists have superimposed their fictional beliefs onto the premises. I am proving through logic that my view is correct in relation to the premises and it is up to you to critique what I offer with the same requirement re burden for your own reasoning.



If you cannot or will not do so, then just say so. There is no need for you to fallaciously argue that I am expecting you to prove my view wrong when in actuality, the burden is on you to show - in comparison - why your view is right and if you cannot do so - then just say so.



I have shown that my view is better than the view of supernaturalists. Therefore there is no burden on you to show it for me, but to show logically that your view is the better and the one which should be accepted.

SOURCE

Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

Clarification needed. By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?

While science has provided valuable insights into the evolution and dynamics of the universe, it has not definitively established whether matter and energy, in and of themselves, had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The scientific narrative often focuses on the observable history of the universe, starting from the Planck time after the Big Bang, but it doesn't necessarily extend to a clear understanding of what occurred before that epoch.

Since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy", I am possibly speaking of a different meaning to "the universe" than you are, and if so - we will be required to account for and determine from that which understanding best fits with what is meant by "the universe" as per the current evidence available to us.

Re that, what I am saying is that "The Universe" may not exclude matter and energy and may include those as eternal aspects, which would effectively mean that "The Universe" did not "begin to exist" but only the current manifestations themselves - and it is the temporal things which began to exist, but these do not altogether make up "The Universe" or we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.

Thus I would have to say that I disagree with the idea/conventional assumption that there is even such a thing as "spatio-temporal matter/energy".

Furthermore, it is clear that the Kalam "meaning of "The Universe" re premise 2 requires updating in order to align with what is actually known rather than what is presumed.

No. As I pointed out, while you claim you are auguring from those particular premises, you have had to change the wording.

In changing the wording, you have changed the premises and are now arguing from those changed premises.

You changed the wording, not me. You can discuss things with a straw tanager or me. Let me know if you want to do both sides of the conversation or if you want me to partake. If you want me to continue to partake, then there are many misunderstandings we need to clear up. That won’t happen by responding directly to everything you’ve said all at once, like we have often tried to do. We’ve got to go one step at a time or I won’t waste our time out of respect for us both.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #143]

You changed the wording, not me.

The wording I am saying that you changed is where you argued "No, it builds on the first 3 premises, where one has shown that the cause of the natural universe..."

The original premise does not refer to the universe as "the natural universe". It only refers to the universe as "the universe" and this is what I have been since pointing out/critiquing.

Because of your argument, instead of arguing re the original three premises, you are arguing re another set of (strawman) premises so in order for your argument to look logical, the premises would have to read;

1. Whatever naturally begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The natural universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the natural universe has a supernatural cause of its beginning.

All this because your supernatural beliefs force you to add the word "natural" to the word "universe" not because I changed the wording. You - Tanager - clearly did.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

Agreed.

Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #146]

You aren’t even sure there is “spatio-temporal energy/matter”? Do you mean it might be an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having? Because you couldn't be having this conversation if what we call spatio-temporal energy/matter didn't exist because you have a human body and are typing on some type of computer and all of that, which are things that are made of spatio-temporal energy/matter, even if that is an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #147]

You aren’t even sure there is “spatio-temporal energy/matter”?

You wanted clarification on what premise 2 "The Universe" meant. I gave a concise explanation re that, based on what you offered.

I gave my own view in answer, which was (in context) to say that I disagreed with your interpretation that "The Universe" was "all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through."

Do you mean it might be an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having? Because you couldn't be having this conversation if what we call spatio-temporal energy/matter didn't exist because you have a human body and are typing on some type of computer and all of that, which are things that are made of spatio-temporal energy/matter, even if that is an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having.

So what you really mean is that "The Universe" is made up of temporary functional objects? If so, that aligns with how I see it too - as I wrote in my last post - we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.

To clarify, not to exclude matter and energy as being responsible for the existence of The Universe made up of temporary functional objects, but to exclude the idea that matter and energy itself is temporary.

Thus,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The Universe began to exist

In that, "The Universe" is "all of the temporal functional objects that exist in whatever forms and cycles these go through."
(Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?)

So what you really mean is that "The Universe" is made up of temporary functional objects? If so, that aligns with how I see it too - as I wrote in my last post - we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.

No, that is not what I mean. We can’t beg the question by our definition of ‘universe’. And we are currently talking about the term, not what the premise says about that term. By 'universe' I’m talking about those things you think are temporary, functional objects, but I’m not saying they are temporary, functional or not temporary, functional objects. That question, answered either way, cannot be a part of the definition or we are begging the question, which is irrational. The focus right now is just on agreeing on the term, not what we think about the things that make up that term.

In considering the definition of 'The Universe,' I find your caution against including specific characteristics within the definition understandable. However, it's worth noting that seeking clarification on what 'The Universe' entails is not an attempt to impose specific characteristics but rather a means to ensure a common ground for our discussion.

Moreover, I understand that drawing on the insights provided by scientific knowledge is rational and that allowing such to be a part of the definition is not “begging the question”, and thus is not an irrational thing to do, but rather – a necessary (rational) thing to include and re definition -would not cause one to fall into the trap of circular reasoning.

Scientific discoveries about the nature of spatio-temporal objects, (various forms), and cycles (beginnings, beings and endings) can inform our understanding without being deemed as 'begging the question.' In doing so, we can create a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for our discussion that incorporates both philosophical considerations and empirical knowledge.
The Universe does have characteristics and these should be included in any definition of The Universe.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #151]

It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

Agreed.
Any definition of "The Universe" which is not scientific knowledge - including the one you are using/wanting to use, should thus be placed aside because of that rule-set.

The definition "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is breach of rule-set as it has within it's phrasing the word "temporal" which is an answer to whether The Universe is "eternal" or "temporal" - (in this case the answer being "temporal".)

Since it is the case that such is not scientific knowledge, "The Universe" cannot be further clarified in its meaning, (re the rule-set) and therefore can only be taken at face value (simply referred to as "The Universe") re the 3 premises being discussed.

This being the case, the second premise (2. The Universe began to exist) having not yet been established, is a false premise and thus, the third premise (3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.) cannot be determined as a logical conclusion.

SOURCE

[William]

I would say that what is going on here are two distinct philosophical arguments.

On the one hand, the supernaturalist premises;

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

And on the other hand, the following.

1. The Universe exists

2. It is unknown that The Universe began to exist.

3: It is unknown if an uncaused being caused The Universe to exist.

4: Therefore, The Universe can be regarded as The Uncaused Being.

Given that these are philosophical musings, they should hold equally to the same rule-set and therein neither should be granted a double standard pass.

This is to acknowledge that the rule-set should apply to both philosophical positions, rather than favor the one over the other.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #155]

You are correct that we should be more exact with the terms, since ‘temporal’ has different meanings.

Temporary simply means Temporal/Temporal simply means Temporary.

The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

In what way do we observe this phenomena?

It does not refer to whether it had a beginning or is beginningless (maybe those should be the terms used instead of eternal/temporal in the question we are not trying to beg).

Indeed - it could be argued that the phenomena observed (whatever these might be) consist of beginnings and ends.

For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (begin exists and end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[The Tanager]

In what way do we observe this phenomena?

How do we observe spatial extension and matter/energy changing (i.e., being temporal)? Are you saying you don't think it has those characteristics?

For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?

We don’t scientifically observe it, but we can turn to philosophy. When we do, I think it becomes known that the universe (spatio-temporal matter/energy) did have a beginning.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #17]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #158]

The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

In what way do we observe this phenomena?

How do we observe spatial extension and matter/energy changing (i.e., being temporal)?

How do we observe the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?

We don’t scientifically observe it, but we can turn to philosophy. When we do, I think it becomes known that the universe (spatio-temporal matter/energy) did have a beginning.

We have yet to philosophically agree with what "The Universe" is that we are speaking about.
Did you not agree that we should be more exact with any of the terms of clarification we might present in that we should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

Yet here you are still referring to the universe as being "temporal matter/energy."
Is this to say then, that you are arguing when the philosophy one "tursn to" offers such a definition of The Universe, this is an acceptable practice to use to compensate our lack of scientific observation and from this particular philosophy you are arguing for, we are able to declare that "Yes! Matter/energy are "temporary"!?

If so, you would be arguing that the rule-set you brought into your argument, should not apply re your particular philosophical position. That is a double standard and only weakens the overall philosophical argument because in order for it to be seen as strong, it is shown to appear that way due to the double standard/bending of the rule-set to suit/allow the philosophy to provide us with "answers" (re "thinking it becomes known" thinking which is derived from a stacked-deck) - providing "answers" which observational science isn't able to currently give us.

Whereas the premises below, remain true to the rule-set.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[boatsnguitars]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

Quantum Indeterminacy:
At the quantum level, particles can come into existence without a cause in the traditional sense. Quantum events, as described by principles like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, exhibit inherent indeterminacy and unpredictability. It challenges the notion that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, at least in the way causality is commonly understood at the macroscopic level.

Causality and Time:
The concept of causality relies on the existence of time, yet time itself is a property of the universe. Asking what caused the universe to begin presupposes a framework of time in which causality operates. However, at the point of the universe's origin, as suggested by the Big Bang theory, time itself may have begun. In such a scenario, the traditional understanding of causality becomes difficult to apply.

Infinite Regress:
If one asserts that everything must have a cause, then the cause itself must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress of causes. This raises questions about the coherence of an infinite chain of causes stretching into the past. The Kalam argument avoids this infinite regress by positing a first uncaused cause, yet this move introduces its own set of philosophical challenges. (Theists simply insert God because they want to end the debate and get people to kneel to their favorite priest.)

Multiverse Hypothesis:
Some cosmological models, such as certain interpretations of string theory, propose the existence of a multiverse—a vast ensemble of universes with different properties. In such a scenario, the concept of a singular "beginning" of the universe becomes more complex. The cause of our universe, if it exists, might be rooted in the dynamics of the multiverse rather than a singular event.

[William]

Welcome back from your suspension.

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #19]

Quantum Indeterminacy:
At the quantum level, particles can come into existence without a cause in the traditional sense. Quantum events, as described by principles like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, exhibit inherent indeterminacy and unpredictability. It challenges the notion that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, at least in the way causality is commonly understood at the macroscopic level.

At the quantum level, particles can APPEAR to come into existence without a cause in the traditional sense. These particle appear to come from nothing but logically would have to come from something.
If we accept the hypothesis, we would have to conclude that since these cannot come from nothing, they must come from something.

Causality and Time:
The concept of causality relies on the existence of time, yet time itself is a property of the universe. Asking what caused the universe to begin presupposes a framework of time in which causality operates. However, at the point of the universe's origin, as suggested by the Big Bang theory, time itself may have begun. In such a scenario, the traditional understanding of causality becomes difficult to apply.

Re that, it has not been agreed on as to what is meant by "The Universe".

Infinite Regress:
If one asserts that everything must have a cause, then the cause itself must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress of causes. This raises questions about the coherence of an infinite chain of causes stretching into the past. The Kalam argument avoids this infinite regress by positing a first uncaused cause, yet this move introduces its own set of philosophical challenges. (Theists simply insert God because they want to end the debate and get people to kneel to their favorite priest.)

This can be adjusted by formulating premises which incorporates the concepts into one thing.
Presently I am engaging with a set of premises which appear to solve that problem.
(This is based upon the concept that "The Universe" is defined as including more than just this current one we are experiencing.)

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (begin exist and end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that The Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

Multiverse Hypothesis:
Some cosmological models, such as certain interpretations of string theory, propose the existence of a multiverse—a vast ensemble of universes with different properties. In such a scenario, the concept of a singular "beginning" of the universe becomes more complex. The cause of our universe, if it exists, might be rooted in the dynamics of the multiverse rather than a singular event.

In my model, multiverses (no matter the number of) are still part of the overall Field Fabric of "The Universe" if indeed "The Universe" is defined as ALL THAT IS. (not just all that we experience as existing here in this one particular universe)

To briefly illustrate.

Analogy.
A 2-dimensional plain which extends in every direction (of 2 dimensions). That is The Universe according to the premises.
On the fabric of this eternal field a point becomes energetic, and this is the Big Bang. The energy uses the inert matter the field consists of, to form things within the bubble that has grown upon said Field Fabric and gets all of the material to achieve this phenomena, from the eternal field itself.
(Re that, there is no reason as to why multitudes of bubbles cannot exist using the same material provided, at various points on the Eternal Field Fabric.)

I acknowledge that use of the analogy imposes (through implication) an “object” or “space” in which the 2-dimentional Field Fabric “thing” exists, and thus is inadequate imagery until all that space is filled.

A way of achieving this is to take the two-dimensional Eternal Field Fabric and stack it on top of itself in every dimensional direction – eternally.