First, that which we observe, that things are caused to exist, is a more probable premise than that which is assumed. Assumed means what? It is pitting a scientific principle against hearsay. Further, everything that is observed is in the universe, unless one has access outside of the universe.
The definition of created implies an outside entity that influences a situation causing a change to that situation. The above premise fails to address this.
crow
Begging The Question
By stating it was created there is a prima facia assumption of a creator.
systemsthinkingrebel
Creation is not required for existence. Energy cannot be created or destroyed as per the first law of thermodynamics. The universe is made of matter and energy. The universe was not created.
Energy is assumed to be a part of the universe. Natural laws cannot apply to something outside of nature (or in this case, to a nature that would not yet exist).
yorrick
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that energy degrades. Since the energy in our universe is usable, the universe has not be around long enough for the energy to all degrade, thus it can into being sometime in the finite past.
If everything needs a cause then the cause itself also needs a cause => infinite chain of causes or circuar causes (but the circle wouldn't have a cause)
The premise quite clearly states that everything that "began" to exist had a cause. The universe began to exist. The cause of the universe may not be caused.
Yes the argument implies that what comes to exit was created, nothing uncreated has ever been observed to exit, the premise is constantly reaffirmed in science. Yes it does imply a creating entity, but that is not a fallacy, its the logic of the argument.
marvin
