You are pushing back the issue and falling into infinite regress of causes.

See Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume.

Explain cause-less-ness, or tell me something that was not caused to exist.

Not a rebbuttal of my statement.

It's your word versus mine. If there is nothing without a cause, then how is what you said true?

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, — Barkon

Where is this given?

It implies there's some grounds to the assertion, 'for no reason', when there is not. In fact it leads to space-headed-ness. It's not really a sensible conjecture. It is as stupid as: Cause: no reason. Effect: it popped up. What I argue is exactly this point, we must assume a cause, it's not optional. Saying no reason is what I argue to be saying the cause was no reason. You can't have an effect for no reason. I have asked already for someone to provide an example of something that was not caused to exist as a forward on this discussion or debate.

And if you believe the universe has no cause, you have to provide evidence, otherwise the empirical logic(of everything being caused) is the determiner of this case.

Things don't pop up for no reason ... — Barkon

What about vaccuum fluctuations, virtual particles or other random events?

And, like the "first point", or edge, on a circumference, the cause of causality itself is? :chin:

It's not a question of what I believe or what you believe. You asserted that

Things don't pop up for no reason, — Barkon

is a "given".
But you don't say the identity of the giver, not trace the provenance of the gift.
It might have been more accurate to say: "Within my ability to observe, no thing or event is uncaused.... wherefore I surmise that the existence of the universe must also have a cause."

We must assume a cause, so we must base theories on an existence that was caused rather than aiming at cause-less-ness and failing to describe it alongside many other inconsistencies concerning things happening without causes. — Barkon

We don't must any such thing - but we can and may.
Can you enumerate and define those many other inconsistencies that concern any other things that happen without causes?
Since you can't describe the cause any more than I can describe causelessness, this is an impasse.

Causality itself implies things are caused, so I would assume causality has a cause, it is the case directly, probably by some divine force. What is causality if not an association with the nature of things as I've put. One could say it's caused by the fact of the matter everything is caused, and thus we ponder 'causality' or it's an existent.

divine force. — Barkon

Eureka!

I have provided an example in the topic starter that suggests 'it's wiser to assert the universe came from some enumeration in the multiverse', probably the anti-thesis of the big bang.

Divinity is something to be considered more numerous than infinity. I don't claim God made it.

Divinity is something to be considered more numerous than infinity. — Barkon

Ho-kay

Infinity is concerned with reach of multiplication and addition whereas divinity is reach of division and subtraction.

Causality itself implies things are caused, so I would assume causality has a cause, it is the case directly, probably by some divine force. — Barkon

"Assume" whatever you like but you've not offered a valid argument yet and without any demonstrable evidence of either "causality" (Hume) or "some divine force" (Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume) you're just talking out of your *ss – poor reasoning at best.

Yup, psychoceramics ... :smirk:

Given the big bang has a 'how it was', or 'what happened', it can be derived to a causation, 'the nature of the effect happening' must have some causation as with nuclear bombs exploding by some chemical reaction; bangs wouldn't be bangs without, per se, a beating of a drum. Given we can judge the big bang effect and ponder what is exactly happening there, I don't see your point. Either remove the idea of the big bang and trade it for 'popping up for no reason', or you revel in stupidity. How can you give content to the beginning, such as by 'big bang', if you then trade all meaning of that for 'it popped up for no reason'?

Example: in the beginning 'it was very hot', thus, something was making it hot. That's all I assert.

Causality itself implies things are caused, so I would assume causality has a cause — Barkon

I think it might make more sense to say "causality has a *reason*" rathern than causality has a cause. Things that are true have a *reason* for being true. "Cause" implies a time relationship, like something came first and then another thing, while "reason" doesn't have that limitation.

But even reasons have an inevitable stopping point. If there's some reason why anything that's true is true, then... what about the reason why things have reasons? Does that have a reason? Eventually, you dig deep enough and you hit a brute fact, I think.

Whatever floats your boat at the end of the day, don't we all live by this code? Happy-go-lucky!

do you think there are any brute facts? Things that just *are true*, with no cause or reason for them being true?

I suppose yeah. Well, well-said everyone who contributed. I will re-think my understanding.

Hey, Shiji Ikari.
Welcome to TPF :smile:

We don't need to 'assume' a cause. I think there might not be a cause at all. We try to answer with causes and effects. A does X and the latter causes Y, etc. But, honestly, this only has sense in human knowledge or as an output to us. I don't attempt to deny that a cause is logically necessary in some matters which are outside of us. But I guess we just overreact towards that principle. You claim things don't pop up for no reason. Well, you are a bit wrong here. There are things which pop up without a cause. For example: the stars or the sunlight rays we receive from the sun. You will explain that the cause of receiving the latter is the result of X. But there is not a cause for the Sun to provide us with light every day. It 'pops up' simultaneously.

But there is not a cause for the Sun to provide us with light every day. — javi2541997

Why do you think that?

I just wanted to note something that I don't see getting addressed in here.

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason')

That something does not have a cause is not itself a cause. You are saying here, that something which does not have a cause has a cause---which is patently false.

I sympathize, but your prose:

Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason. — Barkon

needs work. I see what you’re trying to say but it’s a word salad in its current form.

I would put it like this: we generally believe that ‘things happen for a reason’ but scientists seem to believe that the Universe simply sprung into existence with no cause.

Here you’re asking deep questions, which is perfectly fine. Philosophy does ask deep questions but be prepared for deep thinking and a lot of reading. Be thankful that the medium exists in which these questions can be explored.

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason — Barkon

The premise that the universe "popped into" existence is incoherent. It implies there existed something, into which the universe popped.

The "universe" is best defined as the entirety of material reality. The universe may very well be finite to the past. If so, this entails an initial state; there can have existed no prior state of its non-existence.

Things don't pop up for no reason — Barkon

Sometimes they do. Stop looking for certainty in human-made ideas like causality. The world is a messy place, and there are things we don’t understand and may never will.

The story of the big bang is one story. Happens to be an empirically well-supported one currently, but will likely change in time. Don’t get too hung up on it.

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason. — Barkon

I would surmise that the universe's bang had a cause because, at least, it was able to happen - and that ableness is a something, not a 'nothing'.

As for the ultimate basis of All, it would have to be causeless because Existence has no opposite, it thus having to be unmakeable and unbreakable, it necessarily having no parts and thus being continuous, and eternal.

Things don't pop up for no reason — Barkon

In fact they do all the time at the atomic & sub-atomic level. Just for example - radioactive decay. Atoms will randomly split and new atoms will pop up - at random intervals. When you look at large numbers of such events the aggregate decay follows statistical laws (1/2 life) but there is no reason for any individual atom to decay at a particular point in time. You might also want to check out double slit experiment, etc.