How Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fail? Let Me Count the Ways.

How Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fail? Let Me Count the Ways. December 17, 2019

World-famous philosopher William Lane Craig (WLC) is perhaps best known for his popularization of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Let’s examine it to see if it is as compelling as WLC thinks.

The argument is a Muslim variant on Aristotle’s First Cause argument (something had to be the first cause; otherwise, you have causes going back forever). WLC states the Kalam argument this way:

1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2 The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

There is so much wrong in this brief argument that it will take two posts to explain it. Let’s begin with that first premise. WLC defends it:

Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you’ve got a hat and a magician.

And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don’t we see this happening all the time?

No . . . everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—if something begins to exist, it must have a cause.

That’s the argument? Just an appeal to common sense? (It’s actually an effective argument against miracles—if miracles happened, why don’t we see them today? There are zero universally accepted miracles; therefore, we have no justification for believing in them. Since WLC must reject this argument against miracles, one wonders why he accepts his argument against cause-less things.)

WLC’s support for his philosophical claims often devolve into something like, “Aw, c’mon. You’ll give me that one, right? It’s obvious!” One wonders: if he’s not going to use his doctorates, maybe he should give them back.

Understand the limitations of common sense. It’s not the tool to rely on at the frontier of science. To take one example, we all know that a thing can’t be in two places at once, and yet quantum physics shows that it can. WLC handwaves a simple argument that works with people desperate for justification for their supernatural beliefs, but it doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

1. Things don’t need a cause.

Contrary to WLC’s intuition, things may indeed pop into existence without cause. That’s the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. For example, the electron or neutrino that comes out of a decaying nucleus qualify as things that “began to exist,” and they didn’t have a cause. Just to clarify, this isn’t to say that there is a cause but we just don’t know it. Rather, it’s saying that there is no cause.

WLC will say that this interpretation might be overturned, and that’s true. But then his premise becomes, “Whatever begins to exist might have a cause,” which doesn’t make for much of an argument.

He wonders, “Why don’t we see this happening all the time?” and the obvious answer is that it applies only at the quantum level. Indeed, the universe itself was once the size of a quantum particle, so it’s reasonable to think that causelessness could apply to the universe as well.

That’s the conclusion of cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin:

If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunneling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required. In classical physics, causality dictates what happens from one moment to the next, but in quantum mechanics the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictable and some quantum processes have no cause at all.

To see this another way, replace “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” with “Everything has a cause” and ask WLC to find a counterexample. Unless he can, he has no reason (besides supporting his agenda) to prefer his clumsier version. He can point to the Copenhagen interpretation, but that defeats his version as well.

2. We know nothing about supernatural creation.

“Whatever begins to exist has a cause” has a common-sense appeal, but the only “whatevers” that we know that began to exist (stars, oak trees, a dent in a fender, tsunamis) are natural. Why imagine that this common sense rule of thumb would apply to supernatural causes? And why even imagine that the supernatural exists? WLC doesn’t bother even acknowledging the problem, let alone resolve it.

3. We know nothing about creation ex nihilo.

The only “begins to exist” we know of is rearrangement of existing matter and energy. For example, an oak tree begins with an acorn and builds itself from water, carbon dioxide, and other nutrients. If WLC is talking about creation ex nihilo (“out of nothing”), his premise has become “Whatever begins to exist from nothing has a cause.” He wants us to accept this remarkable claim though he can’t give a single example of something coming from nothing. The common sense appeal of the premise is gone.

WLC said above, “If something can come into being from nothing, then why don’t we see this happening all the time?” If this is supposed to be an argument against creation ex nihilo, does he then not believe God created ex nihilo? He might want to pause to get his argument straight.

(As an aside, the Bible doesn’t even argue that the universe was created ex nihilo.)

4. “Began to exist” makes little sense at the beginning.

WLC wants to stretch the common sense “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” from the natural to the supernatural, from rearrangement of existing matter to creation from nothing, and from creation within time to creation before time. He’s referencing a cause before the universe has even come into existence. If WLC wants to argue for magical creation of this sort, he must provide the evidence to support this claim.

First we have the earthquake, then the tsunami. First the moving car, then the dented fender. First the collection of gas moving inward by gravity, then the star. If the instant of the Big Bang is at t = 0, where is the prior cause? There can be no cause at t = –1 if time started at t = 0. How can there be a cause that works in time before there is time?

Every example WLC can point to (like tsunamis and dented fenders) is a different kind of “begins to exist” than the one he imagines, a (1) supernatural creation (2) from nothing (3) before time began, none of which have examples.

5. We have no reason for the “began to exist” caveat.

Why is the premise not simply “Everything has a cause”? It’s just a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to bias the argument so that it will deliver the divine answer WLC wants. We don’t have myriad examples of things with beginnings, plus myriad examples of things that are without beginnings. That he wants to carve out a spot for his beginningless god reveals his agenda.

Since God is the only exception he imagines, WLC’s “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is simply a disguised version of “Everything has a cause, except for God,” which makes it a circular argument (because it assumes its conclusion). It’s not like he gives evidence to support this remarkable claim; he just asserts it. But if that’s the game we’re playing, I suggest a new first premise: “Everything has a cause, except for the universe.” This is certainly the simpler claim, since WLC must invent a supernatural realm to support his, so Occam’s Razor is against him as well.

WLC will demand that I support my claim with evidence. My response: you first.

Concluded in part 2.

Another good source is The Scathing Atheist podcast episode “Kalam Down” @ 45:00.

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run
by smart people who are putting us on
or by imbeciles who really mean it.
The Peter Principle
by Laurence F. Peter and Raymond Hull

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 10/26/15.)

Image from NASA
.

"Paul addresses that very question in 1 Corinthians 15.Paul didn't know a thing about entropy. ..."

Atheism Fails Because There Is No ..."
"If one of the premises is not true, the argument is invalid. If all the ..."

Atheism Fails Because There Is No ..."
"There is a doubt. It's that I didn't intentionally say what I said, knowing that ..."

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions
"I didn't go back on my word. I never made a promise.Promises are just wind ..."

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • A PRATT I’ve heard a lot of times to Fundies when they bash the Big Bang theory is that “nothing comes from nothing”. Things just go downhill from there having absolutely no idea of science.

    • Michael Neville

      My response to the ex nihilo argument is to ask for a rigorous definition of “nothing”. The first, most basic idea of nothing, empty space without anything in it, is not nothing. In our universe, even a dark, empty void of space, absent of all particles, is still something. It has a topology, it has a shape, it’s a physical object, a vacuum. If the laws of physics still apply to the vacuum, it cannot be nothing since the laws of physics are not nothing.

      • zenmite

        The theist concept of nothing is absolute. They imagine a time before the existence of anything except their deity. Absolute Nothing is a creation of the human mind. There is no evidence that this Nothing has ever existed or ever will or could exist. We can also imagine Absolute Good, Absolute saltiness, Absolute anything. Just because humans can imagine something (or in this case, nothing) exists does not make it real. If you point out that empty space is not truly the Nothing they imagine, they will usually ask “Well, where did the Higgs field come from? or Where did the laws of nature that caused the universe come from?’ And on & on. The default assumption is always that a god had to create these things, since without Him there would be this absolute Nothing they love so much. The most obvious working assumption must be that existence has always existed…in some form. Theist philosophers like Craig get hung up with the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe. They assume this means all of existence came into being with the Big Bang. This excludes the possibility of a cyclic bang bang bang existence and the very real possibility that multiple universe may exist. All because of their assumption of absolute nothing.

        • Michael Neville

          The problem with the theist Absolute Nothing is that it’s not nothing, it contains their god(s).

        • Cozmo the Magician

          I believe in Absolut Vodka… but i prefer Smirnoff O_o

    • Michael Murray

      Sister Maria said nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. That’s good enough for me. Would Sister Maria lie ?

      • Otto

        Perhaps she had a wicked childhood?

        • Michael Murray

          Surely she must have done something good ?

    • when they bash the Big Bang theory is that “nothing comes from nothing”… except for God.

      FTFY

  • Jim Jones

    Even if the universe began to exist and therefore had a cause, adding a god in the sequence is like adding a street-car conductor to an elevator.

    • God’s a solution searching for a problem. And apologists are desperate to help him out.

      How thoughtful.

  • Michael Murray

    Always worth saying I guess that “Big Bang” for scientists doesn’t mean expansion from nothing at time t = 0 or from infinity at time t = 0 just that the universe was once really small and hot and then it expanded rapidly. To go back beyond that “really small and hot” point you need to understand quantum gravity and to quote Vilenkin again “In the regime where gravity becomes essentially quantum, we may not even know the right questions to ask.”

    • Michael Neville

      Cosmologists do not know anything about the universe before it reached Planck Time*. It’s believed that time began at Planck Time, which means time began when the universe was already 5.39 × 10^−44 seconds old. Quantum physics is not common sensical.

      *The time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length (1.616255 × 10^−35 meters), a time interval of approximately 5.39 × 10^−44 second.

      • Quantum physics is not common sensical.

        And yet Christian philosophers can’t help but jump in to help out the scientists.

      • Lord Backwater

        Planck Time… is that like Miller Time?

        • Greg G.

          Planck Time is the one time to have when you’re having more than one.

        • And with Planck times, who can have just one?

        • BertB

          When it comes to brew, I’ve had more than a few.
          I am usually game to try anything new.
          But, I hafta admit that I never drank
          Anything that came with a name like Planck.

        • Michael Neville

          ‘Tis Guinness Porter has me feeling this way,
          It’s sweeter than buttermilk and stronger than tay.
          But when in the morning I feel kind of rough,
          Me curse on Lord Iveagh who brews the damn stuff.

        • Ignorant Amos
      • NSAlito

        Anything outside of the scale of human interaction, whether much smaller or much larger, does not behave according to common sense. How ridiculous to think that something smaller than the eye can see can cause someone to sicken and die! The light from those glowing dots in the night sky is many many years old?

  • Lex Lata

    “No . . . everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—if something begins to exist, it must have a cause.”

    Exactly. And if the universe began to exist, its cause can only have been the foreskin-obsessed, fig-hating warlord-father-son-spirit described by one tribe of a particular species that has inhabited a planet orbiting one of approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 existing stars for about 1/1000th of 1 percent of the universe’s estimated 14 billion years.

    • sandy

      This ^! I like to bring this point up whenever this conversation comes up when arguing for a cause and therefore the existence of god. Apologists believe they are arguing for the existence, of course, for their christian god. Which as Lex has pointed, out is ridiculous. Of all the gods to argue for their existence, Yahweh isn’t one of them. My discussions end pretty quick when I point out they are arguing for the existence of a POS god.

  • Otto

    Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic.

    This is the same guy that goes on to argue that something immaterial can create, make, and act on material…ya know…like magic.

  • Bob Jase

    Believers in magic have no business evaluating science.

  • epeeist

    1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

    I would go further than you on this, I would claim that this is a modal statement and requires the modifier necessarily. In other words it has to be true in all possible worlds.

    If it isn’t necessarily true then this implies there may be possible worlds where it does not apply.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      This reminds to a response the Ontological argument I like. I can imagine a reality with no god, clearly it’s not necessary in all possible worlds.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    Excellent post, Bob. This strikes me as one you’ve added to and refined many times over the years.

    • Lord Backwater

      An acknowledgment in future publications to the hive mind would probably be a fair idea.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Not sure what you mean?

        • Lord Backwater

          That Bob hones his arguments over time, and comments on this blog contribute to that.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    Bill, it’s pretty silly to appeal to intuition when your explanation is a disembodied mind that has been alive forever, requires no sustenance and can change reality through sheer force of will.

    I also can’t help but wonder…. if science says something cannot come from nothing, what does science say about that?

  • Jeremy

    It always irks me that the theist will not except a natural explanation unless we have every ‘i’ dotted and every ‘t’ crossed. If we can’t FULLY explain every aspect of “how”, they brush it off. They will then turn and assert an answer for which they have NO understanding, only more supporting assertions. We have to show HOW our answer works, while they just get to assert their answer with no explanation of the actual mechanisms involved.

    Non-theist: “We now believe that it may in fact be possible for a universe to begin from a fluctuation in a quantum vacuum.”

    Theist: “Oh, yeah? By what precise mechanism? How would that even work? Until you can show me precisely how that would happen, your argument fails”

    Non-theist: “Okay, we’re working on that. But can you tell me by what exact mechanism your God created the material world? By what mechanism does a spirit interact with a physical world?”

    Theist: “He spoke it into existence by the power of his will. I’ve already told you, he’s omnipotent, so he can do anything, including creating and interacting with the world.”

    Non-theist: “Fine, but HOW does non-physical substance interact with physical substance? You want me to explain the how before you’ll accept my answer – which is actually fair! – but you can tell me even less about the ‘how’ than I can, so why should anyone accept your answer over mine?”

    It’s like we’re talking past each other (shocking, right?!). Non-theists are talking about “how” something happened and theists are just arguing “that” something happened. The end result is that non-theists have to defend how we know the “how” while theists don’t even put that on the table, so they never have to defend it. We should try to level the playing field by requiring they explain the “how”, since that’s what we have to do, or just eliminate “how” and argue about who can come up with the most internally consistent hypothetical idea of what might have happened. Either way, I wish more debaters would draw attention to the discrepancy.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Yes, “god did it” – even if true – has an much explanatory power as “natural forces did it”. Same predictive power as well…. which is zero, of course, since neither offers a methodology to extrapolate predictions from.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        A little bit *less* explanatory power, IMHO.

        After all, we can *demonstrate* that natural forces exist.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Granted, but I’ll be generous and assume it’s something that would require updating descriptive laws either way. Even ostensibly natural things will occasionally “violate” laws and force us to rethink them.

          In a case like that, simply appealing to naturallity doesn’t move the needle much more than a god does.

          The key point for theists is that it doesn’t move the needle any less.

    • Theist: “He spoke it into existence by the power of his will…”.

      I wasn’t aware that the sheer force of will is a viable mechanism for anything, so why should it be a viable mechanism for creating a universe?

      • Bob Jase

        Because even believers are embarrassed to admit believing in magic, I had that argument with my ex only two days ago.

  • RichardSRussell

    “What existed before time began?” is as incoherent a question as “What’s north of the North Pole?” or “What do you get when you divide 7 by 0?”. (Try plugging that last one into a calculator and see what you get.) Science and math recognize that some quantities are simply undefined. This is a somewhat different condition than being logically impossible (like a square circle), but it’s certainly nothing to use as undergirding for a major philosophical hypothesis.

    • Grimlock

      Wouldn’t this be why the Kalam is explicitly (through how it defines “begins to exist”) tied to the A-theory of time? As on, say, the B-theory it fails.

  • RichardSRussell

    There are 5 main hypotheses to answer the question “Where did everything come from?”:


    (1) Some entity made it. (Religious people always claim it was their entity.)


    (2) It’s always been there.


    (3) It sprang into existence spontaneously (like electron-positron pair production writ large).


    (4) It’s not really there; we’re all living in The Matrix.


    (5) The question is meaningless, like “What’s north of the North Pole?”

    There isn’t enuf evidence available to seriously support any of these hypotheses, so — far from concluding that we must take one of them on faith — the most reasonable position to hold as of 2019 is “nobody knows”.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Although, since #1 also requires accepting #2 (for the entity) we can say that it is one of the weaker options.

    • Lord Backwater

      4) Well, where did the Matrix come from?

      5) That’s easy. Polaris.

      • Doubting Thomas

        4) Well, where did the Matrix come from?

        Toyota

      • Cozmo the Magician

        It all started with

        10 Dim Universe(x,y,z,t,a,b,c….) : Rem Pick your own # of dimensions O_o

    • 1) Exactly, theirs. This is the weakest point of said argument, as in order to justify it they’ll end up using their well-known sources.

      2) It’s a brute force argument supported by some. It exists, or at least something from which it came (see 3)), because the alternative (absolute nothingness) cannot for all can be said that thing to exist.

      3) seems to be supported by observations, as it requires the Universe to be flat -which no measurable curvature-, which has been shown to be true by observations of the CMB.

  • BertB

    As many readers here probably know, another Patheos web site, A Tippling Philosopher, is hosted by Jonathan M S Pearce who has written a book on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He goes after WLC, just as Bob does in this article. Here is a review of Pearce’s book:
    https://www.skepticink.com/onusloom/2017/02/12/great-new-review-for-did-god-create-the-universe-from-nothing/
    If you don’t know about the Tippling Philosopher web site, here is a link:
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/
    (Disclosure: I am an occasional contributor to ATP)

    • Grimlock

      I enjoyed that book!

    • sandy

      He also has an excellent book The Nativity: A critical Examination which totally destroys the validity of the birth of Jesus. Would make for a great Christmas gift for special friends. lol It’s always a good read for this time of year.

    • Thanks, Bert.

    • Ignorant Amos

      I got that book quite while back in November 2016…on Kindle and completely forgot about it. A suppose a had better get back into it.

  • eric

    For example, the electron or neutrino that comes out of a decaying nucleus qualify as things that “began to exist,” and they didn’t have a cause.

    Not to throw shade, but this isn’t exactly right. What doesn’t have a cause is the moment or act of decay (as distinct from any other moment when it could decay). But nuclei have an internal quantum mechanical structure that is confirmable through experiment and observation, and that structure includes the notion of particles such as neutrons, protons, and even alpha particles (for heavier atoms) existing ‘as particles’ within them. One good example of observable confirmation is nuclear shell structure, which results in distinct gamma ray emissions very similar in many respects to the atomic structure (of electrons around the nucleus) leading to spectral lines in visible emissions. Another good example is the higher stability of isotopes with even numbers of neutrons and protons; this is an indication that they’re pairing up in the nucleus, and that such pairs are more stable than ‘loner’ particles in the nucleus (which is another expectation of a shell structure).

    So, particles that decay out of a nucleus exist in that nucleus prior to the decay. At least in some weird quantum mechanical sense which probably is not at all like some little physical ball sitting in the nucleus. What doesn’t have a ’cause’ is the event of them exiting the nucleus. That’s just dictated by the fact that they have wavefunctions with nonzero values both inside and outside the nucleus, which in turn means that at any given moment there is some nonzero probability you’ll find it ‘outside’ the nucleus, and when you do, that’s called “decay.” There doesn’t have to be a precipitating act; the wavefunction of that particle may be exactly the same at time t1 as t2 as t3 as t4, etc… It’s just that at time t3 it decayed, while at time t2 or t1 it didn’t.

    [/nerdinar]

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Thanks for nerding up the board. It’s always fun to learn these little nuances.

  • RichardSRussell

    Formal logic dates back to ancient Greece and is based on the concept of the syllogism. A syllogism has 2 explicitly stated premises (“if” statements) which are combined using rules of logic to produce a conclusion (a “then” statement).

    Example #1: If all men are fallible, and if Aristotle is a man, then Aristotle is fallible.

    Logic tells us absolutely nothing about the truth of the premises. For example, consider:

    Example #2: If all squares are round, and if this triangle is a square, then this triangle is round.

    Example #2 follows exactly the same structure as Example #1 and thus leads to a conclusion which is equally valid (that is, reliable according to the rules of logic). The conclusion is, of course, ludicrous, but that’s because the premises are ludicrous. However, logic will yield true conclusions from true premises. It does not and cannot, however, make any a priori statements about whether premises are true.

    And Craig’s first premise — the one about everything having a cause — is demonstrably false, which should have told him that his conclusion is untrustworthy.

    • eric

      WLC: “Check out my valid argument for the existence of God!”
      Philosopher: “Valid arguments are a dime a dozen. Is it sound? It doesn’t appear sound according to modern physics. How can we tell if it’s sound?”
      WLC: “Check out my valid argument for the existence of God!”

  • Cozmo the Magician

    Ohh! I can play this game too!

    All invisible pink unicorns love magicians
    All things loved by invisible pink unicorns are brilliant
    I am a magician
    Therefor I is brilliant.

    All people with the initials WLC are twits*. Nothing further need be said.

    * this was an example of ‘logic’ I mean no offense to OTHER people with initials WLC.

  • John Grove

    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. The universe began to exist
    3. Therefore, there is a god who is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, who concerns himself with what we do while naked, has his followers kill gays while some drink poison to prove their loyalty and faith while others have slaughtered countless others and kept the women for themselves, he causes endless wars, most assuredly hates the liberals, despises those who embrace “science” and “fact based reasoning”.

    Yea, that make sense. :-/

  • Ed

    .

    Things don’t need a cause.
    Contrary to WLC’s intuition, things may indeed pop into existence without cause. That’s the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. For example, the electron or neutrino that comes out of a decaying nucleus qualify as things that “began to exist,” and they didn’t have a cause. Just to clarify, this isn’t to say that there is a cause but we just don’t know it. Rather, it’s saying that there is no cause.
    WLC will say that this interpretation might be overturned, and that’s true. But then his premise becomes, “Whatever begins to exist might have a cause,” which doesn’t make for much of an argument.
    He wonders, “Why don’t we see this happening all the time?” and the obvious answer is that it applies only at the quantum level. Indeed, the universe itself was once the size of a quantum particle, so it’s reasonable to think that causelessness could apply to the universe as well.

    I dont agree with how Craig states this premise. It should be “everything that is an effect needs a cause.” And the universe has all the characteristics of an effect and therefore needs a cause. An electron and a neutrino already exist when they come out of a decaying nucleus, they were still existing when they are in the nucleus. The nucleus is just decaying. So no they did not begin to exist. But your first premise is partially right, SOME things dont need a cause because some things are not an effect. And one of those things that dont need a cause because they are not an effect is God. My Next post will deal with your second premise.

    • That’s a bit of a word salad. Not sure how your restatement means anything.

      An electron and a neutrino already exist when they come out of a decaying nucleus, they were still existing when they are in the nucleus.

      Was I not clear? A nucleus doesn’t normally have electrons in them. Then the nucleus decays, then it expels an electron. The electron didn’t exist, and then it did. No cause.

      • Ed

        That’s a bit of a word salad. Not sure how your restatement means anything.

        It is closer to the original formulation by Aristotle and it allows for the possibility that there are things that dont need a cause. There may very well be something that doesn’t need a cause, but definitely all effects need a cause.

        Was I not clear? A nucleus doesn’t normally have electrons in them. Then the nucleus decays, then it expels an electron. The electron didn’t exist, and then it did. No cause.

        According to Wikipedia there is a cause, the process changes the neutron or neutrino into an electron, see bold below in article:
        “In nuclear physics, beta decay (β-decay) is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (fast energetic electron or positron) is emitted from an atomic nucleus, transforming the original nuclide to an isobar. For example, beta decay of a neutron transforms it into a proton by the emission of an electron accompanied by an antineutrino; or, conversely a proton is converted into a neutron by the emission of a positron with a neutrino in so-called positron emission. Neither the beta particle nor its associated (anti-)neutrino exist within the nucleus prior to beta decay, but are created in the decay process.” But even if there is no cause for the existence of the electron, that still does not mean a quantum event can cause the universe to come into existence, because all quantum events need an interval of time to occur. But at time =0, there is no time for a quantum event to occur.

        • Greg G.

          You didn’t identify a cause.

          But even if there is no cause for the existence of the electron, that still does not mean a quantum event can cause the universe to come into existence, because all quantum events need an interval of time to occur. But at time =0, there is no time for a quantum event to occur.

          When two quantum events interact, it’s a quantum event. If a million quantum interact, it’s a quantum event. If ten to the 100th power quantum events interact, it’s a quantum event that might be a universe.

          Q: What are the chances of ten to the 100th power quantum events interacting given unlimited time?
          A: Inevitable.

        • definitely all effects need a cause.

          So just ignore what I wrote. Very clever—I didn’t expect that one.

          According to Wikipedia there is a cause, the process changes the neutron or neutrino into an electron, see bold below in article:

          Are you stupid or are you just trying to drag this out?

          Tell us in your own words: what is the cause? If you say that the neutrino was created in the decay process, then what created the decay process?