Nyaanyaa

Just different definitions. Multiverse hypotheses propose that there are many alternate universes and that the sum of all these is the multiverse that contains all. Under the definition I provided, all these alternate universes could be called for example sub-universes and the multiverse that contains all would be the universe. Circular reasoning? Where? I have explained quite at length why acausility equates to circular reasoning—A because A because A because A ... . You don't see a “because” in there because you gave no explanation. Why can A happen under certain conditions?

Which is why I provided argumentation for my position afterwards. I can hardly point out that acausality is absurd/illogical without pointing out that it is absurd/illogical. I care about logical reasoning, not about making anyone look bad. You wrote, “The existence of acausal events does not mean they are without explanation.” If there is an explanation for why A happens, there must be a reason for why A happens; because any explanation for why A happens must begin with A happens because... .

Strange, refrain from unnecessary snarky remarks. Thank you. That is exactly what you said. “B spontaneously creates itself.” Precisely my point. I am dismissing your “suggestion” because it is not logical. “According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.” Rather, you're not understanding what I wrote at all. It's really straightforward. If A creates B, then A is the creator of B. If a quantum fluctuation creates B, then the quantum fluctuation is the creator of B. If a “supernatural” entity creates B, then the “supernatural” entity is the creator of B. I have refuted your claim that “there are already many known examples of acausal events.” There is no evidence whatsoever for the absence of a cause for any event (and thus acausality), there is at best absence of evidence of a cause for an event. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there is no evidence of any acausal events; thus, your claim has no foundation. The point of such scientific theories is to explain things “well enough,” but if you keep asking Why? you will eventually reach a point where (currently) we no longer know an explanation. Thus, the very foundation of any theory in science is a very big I don't know. Yes, it does. If A causes B causes C, then A causes C. But if A is unknown, then the in this case fundamental cause of C cannot be explained.

You are saying B creates B, which implies B because B. That is indeed not a valid logical argument. A quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. It requires constituents of the universe to already exist. The subject of discussion is the entire universe, not just the observable universe. A creator is any A that creates a B. Any theory that proposes there are multiple universes uses a different definition of the word universe than I provided. Under that definition, all “multiple universes” would be part of the one universe that entails all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not knowing the cause of an event is not evidence for the absence of a cause. If there is but one effect A that cannot be explained in a causal chain that encompasses all, then all effects in the chain can fundamentally not be explained because the root is inexplicable. This is because all cause-effect relations must inevitably extend infinitely (i.e., 1 is caused by 2 is caused by 3 is caused 4 ..... is caused by ∞), and thus must inevitably reach a point where the cause is A.

It was never meant to be an argument. It was an explanation for why I did not consider the absurdity of acausality in need of explanation. Why does A happen?

B because B? This is circular logic. I consider acausality to be in the realm of magic, miracles, and fairy tales—it is absurd. Acausality posits that A happens because A happens, or that the sky is blue because the sky is blue—this circular logic is not only a fallacious argument and proves nothing, but aucasility further posits that there is no other cause but the event itself. It posits that there are hitherto unexplained phenomena that cannot be explained because they cannot be explained. If that is so, then nothing at all can be explained.

You are misunderstanding this. The Universe is defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. That means you can use the Universe and everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist interchangeably—they mean the same. Thus, the next sentence can be similarly written as: “According to our current understanding, everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.” What this sentence expresses is that according to our current understanding all that exists/has existed/will exist is either spacetime, energy, or physical law. If we were to identify a fourth constituent, then our understanding of the universe would be expanded; but the definition would remain unchanged.

“The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Definition. Of course. Creation is—by definition—the process of A bringing B into existence. If no A brings any B into existence, there is no creation. Thus, for any process of creation, there must be a creator A, and a creation B. -> Creation requires a creator. If A creates B, then A causes B. If A causes B, there is causality. You are confusing the universe (i.e., everything that exists, has existed, and will exist) with the observable universe (i.e., everything we can in principle observe).

The question is actually easily answered through logical reasoning alone. The universe is by definition all that exists. -> Creation requires a creator. -> If a Creator exists, the Creator cannot create the universe because the universe already exists through the Creator's existence itself. -> The universe cannot have been created. Another way towards that conclusion: Creation requires causality (i.e., cause and effect). -> Causality requires the existence of time. -> Time is a property of the universe. -> The creation of the universe requires the universe to already exist. This is a paradox! -> The universe cannot have been created. Interesting question: Was the observable universe created?