This is a loaded question.

The intended formula goes like this:

1) Atheist: No, every effect does not need a cause.

Theist: That is an unfounded statement, because you can't give an example of an effect without a cause.

2) Atheist: Yes, every effect has a cause.

Theist: See, god exists.

 

The reasons this is flawed:

1) this assumes that everything has a beginning.  As far as cosmologists can tell, this is not necessarily a given.  Matter and energy, although they may not have always existed in their present forms (in fact, they probably haven't) it is quite possible that some form of "matter/energy" has always existed.  The question of "why" is completely separate from the question of "if."  

2) IF everything has a cause, THEN god has to have a cause, and we're still stuck in an endless loop of causality.  Sticking an infinite being into an endless loop to create finality is, well... kind of stupid.

3) IF God doesn't need a cause, THEN matter doesn't need a cause.  (yes, I skipped a step in the proof.  Sue me.  It's a valid proof.)

4) IF matter doesn't need a cause, THEN god is not necessary

5) IF god is unnecessary, and unprovable, THEN it's likely he doesn't exist.

 Now, to answer your question more directly:

I think that everything that is an EFFECT has a CAUSE.

 

These questions could be posed by a mystisist or Scientologist or Kaballah supporter or defender of ID and it still amounts to dodging claims of magic and hokus pokus.

How did the universe get to this state is a lagit question. What state was it before the big bang. Again, lagit question. However, whatever we dont know about the origins or processes of the universe does not constitute the justification of Superman vs Kriptonite claims.

Whatever future discoveries through scientific method that yeilds new data will not make talking donkeys or spirit sperm real. It wont make Scientology credible any more than claims of 72 virgins.

The questions you pose in the original post will not justify claims of miracles or magic. I am not fooled by the attempts of theists to use philosophy or psudo science to distract people from fictionaly fairy tale claims writen by goat herders. 

 

Nope, do not believe in that. Most things come from multiple sources and to complex to have one significant cause. If you believe that everything came from a cuase then you have to ask, what caused the cause?

This is the beginning of William Lane Craig's Kalam argument.

I deal with the kalam argument here

Shaun

Never heard this question before, so my answer is not solid, but I would lean towards no, not everything needs a cause (ie. I do not believe a cause is neccesarry for 'time&#39.

I am interested in where this is heading though.

I think the term "infinite" is nonsense.

Nothing ever begins to exist, it only changes form such that we call it something else.  

That's a big negative from me.  5 moments from now (moment being an arbitrary length of time) will begin to exist, but will not have been caused by the 4th moment from now, but simply by the passage of time into the 5th moment.  No action need be taken for the 5th moment to exist.  One could argue that it was infact the movement through time that caused the 5th moment to begin, but then one strips away intention from the causality.

    Yes and no.  On the large scale the universe does seem to appear that way, and our minds have evolved to comprehend things that way.  However, the universe on the small scale doesn't.  In fact, the universe on the small scale is about as bizarre, and apperently impossible as it could get.  We do see things, quite literally, being created, and anihalated seemingly without cause.

    A good example for this is particles of energy (photons) becomming two seperate particles of matter and anti-matter, and then colliding with each other, anihalating themselves and becoming a photon again.  All without cause, and we can see it happen.  Stephen Hawking theorized that if one of these events happens at the very edge of the event-horizon of a black-hole, one of the particles will fall in, and the other will escape.  When astronomers looked for this "Hawking Radiaton", they indeed found it.

    It is tempting to try to think about the universe, and apply the laws of nature as our minds have evolved to understand them.  But our minds have evolved to only understand a microscopic amount of the laws of the universe, that is why we need things like physics, astronomy, and the natural sciences to guide us to a true understanding of the cosmos.  And unfortunately, physics don't allow for the existence needs a cause argument.  The universe is just too plain weird for it.