The Causal God Gambit

[atrib]

Simple error in logic. You have constructed whats known as a faulty inference.....since matter and energy are neither being created or destroyed then we can infer that matter and energy are eternal.

The LoC (law of Conservation) is a physical law of nature, thus it governs within nature.

Let us assume that the Law of Conservation of Energy is true, and state this law to be clear as to what it implies. This is from Wiki:

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then a supernatural creator, lets call it god, cannot create or destroy energy. Therefore, the matter and energy we observe in the visible universe must have existed prior to the initiation of the big bang, the expansion of our visible universe. All your god hypothesis does is add a layer of complexity to the answer. The energy already existed in some form, and an intelligent entity is required to get the ball rolling. What you haven't explained is why this is the case. We see tornados and typhoons, star formation and supernova happening in nature without the intervention of any intelligent entity. Why would our universe require such an agent? Why couldn't the universe be the result of natural forces that we do not currently understand?

SBBM indicates that nature had a beginning. If your faulty inference is correct then Why don't cosmologists consider this physical law of nature a violation of the SBBM? Really...that is a serious question....Because that is what you are suggesting here. Note also that this is a religiously neutral question.

Our current models of reality point towards the expansion of the visible universe from a small, dense point about 14 billion years ago. However, we have no idea if the visible universe is all there is. Theoretical models (M-theory) predicts other dimensions of existence beyond the four we are familiar with, and suggests that the collision between such dimensions (branes) may have provided the energy that led to our visible universe. You seem dead set of arguing that the state of the universe at the initiation of expansion is all there is, because you need this to shoehorn your favorite creation story into an explanation of the universe's origins. The fact is we DO NOT KNOW. There could be an infinite number of conditions that could theoretically have led to the formation of our visible universe, most or all of which are unknown to us. That is the honest answer.

By universe I mean.....the traditional......The universe is all of physical reality.

from wiki....
The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. The size of the entire Universe is unknown.

oxford..
the universe All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

Both good with me.

If the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago, and the visible universe is all there is, then a supernatural creator could NOT have existed prior to this event. Nothing could have existed prior to this event. If you claim god is required to explain the origins of the visible universe, this god would have had to exist in some form of space-time continuum prior to the event, and have had access to energy in order to initiate the event. No matter how you twist the argument, you cannot escape this conclusion.

You have failed on both accounts to defeat either premise.
Your offered defeaters are for more implausible then the premises themselves.
The argument stands valid.
The best you can claim is that the argument is not compelling.

Lets be honest. The only reason you believe this argument is because you are biased towards your favorite creation story. Even if our visible universe was created by an intelligent entity, there is no evidence to connect this creator to your preferred god. Sorry, but you can polish this turd all you want, but it still stinks.

 

[remez]

Oh, but it does - you have missed the important bit: "we have zero experience of things beginning to exist". It is unjustified to claim a cause for 'things beginning to exist', as we have NO experience of such an event, other than the Big Bang - and to assume a cause for that event would be question begging.

Seriously I'm trying to understand you here.

Are you flat out denying the law of causality altogether to escape the argument?
and.............
Your reasoning here actually sounds like mereological nihilism?

Also your terminology of "we have zero experience of things beginning to exist." needs a deeper inspection.
In context with the Law of conservation (LoC)..........Aren't you conflating "things" with "the matter of the things"?

I guess they are good with anyone, once he has snipped out the part of my argument where I explain why they are no good....... Do you care to address that, or are you happier with your continuing equivocation that the limited definition of 'universe' and the broader definition (that is also called 'multiverse') be treated as the same thing, despite one being a mere subset of the other?

I'm not trying to manipulate the argument at all. I defined what I meant by the universe. You are the one trying to equivocate out of the premise. Thus I think your point here is pointless because I was clear with you on what I meant by universe. If you want to go against the obvious traditional definition, then you are the one equivocating. To show you how irrelevant your concern is watch this..... p2..."All of physical reality" began to exist. Therefore "all of physical reality" had a cause. The premise remains unaffected by your equivocation.

 

[remez]

Need? Why does the universe need a cause,

Do you know the argument?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause,

Good. Since the universe began to exist it needs a cause.
I support the premise that the universe began to exist with the SBBM.
Further the SBBM infers that it is far more plausible than not that the universe began to exist.
I'm not inferring anything about God there. Lets leave God out of it.
The universe began to exist and needs a cause.
I have not said anything about the cause at all, just that it needs one.

Your thoughts.

 

[remez]

We keep missing each other because we keep hitting different aspects of the two different arguments.
In order get on the same page can we narrow our focus here to just P1 of the LCA? Addressed below.

The arguments clearly presents the cases that God is explained and does not have a cause.

Lol... no they dont: They presume that there is something......

OK, lets not use the term God here.
I like your term something.
Simply leave God out of it. Yes I actually said that.
Can we both agree to go with "something" for now?

Again I specifically want to focus on the reasoning/logic of the just p1 of the LCA.

Premise one is actually known as the principal of sufficient reasoning (PSR).
here it is....
p1 Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Would you agree?
and more importantly..........
Do you see that there is no issue of presumption here, it is logic?

Your thoughts?

 

[remez]

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, ……..Therefore, the matter and energy we observe in the visible universe must have existed prior to the initiation of the big bang,

I repeat.

Simple error in logic. You have constructed what’s known as a faulty inference.....since matter and energy are neither being created nor destroyed then we can infer that matter and energy are eternal.

The LoC (law of Conservation) is a physical law of nature, thus it governs within nature.

You bringing your God into this did not help you here.

Why couldn't the universe be the result of natural forces that we do not currently understand?

Here is a no brane-er ...................

HONESTLY which is more plausible the universe began to exist or that it is eternal?

 

[bilby]

Seriously I'm trying to understand you here.

Are you flat out denying the law of causality altogether to escape the argument?
and.............
Your reasoning here actually sounds like mereological nihilism?

Also your terminology of "we have zero experience of things beginning to exist." needs a deeper inspection.
In context with the Law of conservation (LoC)..........Aren't you conflating "things" with "the matter of the things"?

Can you show that anything else is important? As far as I can see, the Big Bang produced only raw mass/energy (whether from pre-existing mass/energy or not we can't say); All manner of 'things' formed from that mass energy without the intervention of intelligence until, after many billions of years, intelligences evolved from a tiny fraction of that matter and started doing intelligent stuff with some of it. Basically, shit happened. Gods were not required. Just mass/energy. And that has never once been shown to come into existence due to a 'cause'. Perhaps the Big Bang did that; perhaps not. We don't know.

I guess they are good with anyone, once he has snipped out the part of my argument where I explain why they are no good....... Do you care to address that, or are you happier with your continuing equivocation that the limited definition of 'universe' and the broader definition (that is also called 'multiverse') be treated as the same thing, despite one being a mere subset of the other?

I'm not trying to manipulate the argument at all. I defined what I meant by the universe. You are the one trying to equivocate out of the premise. Thus I think your point here is pointless because I was clear with you on what I meant by universe. If you want to go against the obvious traditional definition, then you are the one equivocating. To show you how irrelevant your concern is watch this..... p2..."All of physical reality" began to exist. Therefore "all of physical reality" had a cause. The premise remains unaffected by your equivocation.

But your assertion that the Big Bang is relevant to the beginning, and provides a scientific backing for the premise, does NOT remain unaffected. It is fine to say "The universe began with the Big Bang"; That claim is true, if we define the universe in the way you wish to; But "all of physical reality began with the Big Bang" is NOT necessarily true - we simply don't know whether physical reality existed at or before the Big Bang. So there goes your scientific backing for your argument.

 

[bilby]

We keep missing each other because we keep hitting different aspects of the two different arguments.
In order get on the same page can we narrow our focus here to just P1 of the LCA? Addressed below.

Lol... no they dont: They presume that there is something......

OK, lets not use the term God here.
I like your term something.
Simply leave God out of it. Yes I actually said that.
Can we both agree to go with "something" for now?

Again I specifically want to focus on the reasoning/logic of the just p1 of the LCA.

Premise one is actually known as the principal of sufficient reasoning (PSR).
here it is....
p1 Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Would you agree?
and more importantly..........
Do you see that there is no issue of presumption here, it is logic?

Your thoughts?

Can you give an example of something for which the explanation for its existence is "the necessity of its own nature"? That part of the premise seems tailor made for sneaking in unevidenced supernatural entities.

Why is P1 not "Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, in an external cause"?

 

[Juma]

We keep missing each other because we keep hitting different aspects of the two different arguments.
In order get on the same page can we narrow our focus here to just P1 of the LCA? Addressed below.

Lol... no they dont: They presume that there is something......

OK, lets not use the term God here.
I like your term something.
Simply leave God out of it. Yes I actually said that.
Can we both agree to go with "something" for now?

Again I specifically want to focus on the reasoning/logic of the just p1 of the LCA.

Premise one is actually known as the principal of sufficient reasoning (PSR).
here it is....
p1 Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Would you agree?
and more importantly..........
Do you see that there is no issue of presumption here, it is logic?

Your thoughts?

explanation = a model. Thus it is a statement about our capability of making models of the world.
Its a statement that is only valid when there are brains capable of making models and its a statement about the working of these brains. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

It is possible that "explanation" is just a bad translation for "reason" or "cause":

"p1 Everything that exists has an cause for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."

There is nothing such as "the necessity of its own nature" when seen in the context of the creation of the entire universe. There is no indication that there are rules that dictate how universes work. We can only observe the universe we happen to have formed in.

Which leaves us with external causes.
But that os really to beg the question: we dont know if the universe needs a cause.

 

[abaddon]

I see nothing evident about P1 either.

It looks to me like everyone gets the argument well-enough. The real problem, remez, is your need for the traditional uses of words to be accepted as truisms.

What if the constituent energy/matter of the universe is eternal even if this universe's particular configuration of it is not eternal? That's one example we presented when we discussed this some weeks ago, and now again.

Language is an ancient invention, it's fuzzy edged, and it doesn't necessarily correspond well with actuality. So to try to get around that and produce straight lines and right angles where there are none, you have to be insistent on traditional definitions. Which makes the premises into assertions. That’s why scientists quantify, to escape language’s sloppiness. That’s why logic fails if you can't show, empirically, the premises are factual.

Existence might really have always been, and sans any first cause or prime mover. The whole question of "why something rather than nothing?" presumes the oddness of existence compared to nothingness. There has to be something more, something that's eternal or self-so or necessary-in-itself. But it definitely cannot be existence (the flux of matter and energy). Now that is definitely a presumption so you're not engaged in pure logic.

There are values in these old rationalist arguments.

 

[Kharakov]

Since the universe began to exist it needs a cause.

If the universe includes any eternally existing causal factors that give birth to 4+ dimensional spacetimes, the universe doesn't begin to exist.

I support the premise that the universe began to exist with the SBBM.

The SBBM doesn't address eternal causal frameworks- it just traces things back to when spacetime began to expand (which might or might not have been a good idea).

Further the SBBM infers that it is far more plausible than not that the universe began to exist.

I'd say it just "infers" that spacetime expansion began for this particular branch of spacetime ~13.8 billion years ago.

The universe began to exist and needs a cause.
I have not said anything about the cause at all, just that it needs one.

If you are defining the universe as the spacetime we live within and everything within it, sure. If you define it as the eternal pre-existing spacetime and matter that somehow created the section of spacetime our cosmos resides within, the whole concept of "eternal things having a beginning" is... well. Why don't you argue about it with untermensche?

 

[remez]

But your assertion that the Big Bang is relevant to the beginning, and provides a scientific backing for the premise, does NOT remain unaffected. It is fine to say "The universe began with the Big Bang"; That claim is true, if we define the universe in the way you wish to; But "all of physical reality began with the Big Bang" is NOT necessarily true - we simply don't know whether physical reality existed at or before the Big Bang. So there goes your scientific backing for your argument.

"We simply don't know" is a cop out as I see it.
Here is why.
Most of what we choose to believe..... we believe w/o certainty. We almost know nothing with certainty. And that is what you are really saying....you don't know with certainty. You seem to be arbitrarily employing your skepticism here with the weak notion that we don’t know with certainty.

So reasonably MOST of what we believe depends on the PLAUSIBILITY its true.

So in the context of the science of cosmology............which is far more PLAUSIBLE;

The universe, all of physical reality, to include all matter, all energy all space and all time began to exist, and is not eternal.
or
the universe or part of it is eternal in some way?

Please explain?

Can you give an example of something for which the explanation for its existence is "the necessity of its own nature"? That part of the premise seems tailor made for sneaking in unevidenced supernatural entities.

-Many mathematicians would reason that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist as a necessity of their own nature. Others would argue that the laws of logic exists in the same fashion. They are not caused to exist by something else. Don’t forget platonic objects, should they exist but that is another debate.

-I at this point, (Remember we are only at p1.) I would simply reason, as the logic demands, that there has to be "something" that is eternal and has the power of being within itself. That's it.

-So as to your concern that this may be special pleading…. I would remind you to examine the history of this argument. Back at the formation of this argument the universe was considered by many to be eternal along with platonic objects and God. This debate has been around for thousands of years. It was not constructed to special plead for God. It has been recently with the advance of science that the universe has switched classification. You can’t reasonably ignore thousands of years of history and NOW claim the WLC is special pleading because your favorite creation story has most plausibly been removed from the original list of candidates.

-Further You and I are presently trying to determine if that "something" is still plausibly the universe itself.

 

[remez]

explanation = a model. Thus it is a statement about our capability of making models of the world.
Its a statement that is only valid when there are brains capable of making models and its a statement about the working of these brains. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

It is possible that "explanation" is just a bad translation for "reason" or "cause":

Your equivocation here is wrong (google types of explanation)
and
Irrelevant because............this is the context...........

A simple question of analysis.

like 12 is a number
is it odd or even?

The universe is a thing.
Is it necessary or contingent?

That's it.

"p1 Everything that exists has an cause for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."

See.... there you go again!

Not so. If something is necessary then it does not have a cause. I thought you understood the argument. BH earlier provided a link to a good examination of this argument. Now of course you can disagree with it. But your asserted disagreements thus far indicate that you do not really understand the argument. Here is BH’s link….
http://www.maverick-christian.org/2012/05/leibnizian-cosmological-argument-for.html

There is no indication that there are rules that dictate how universes work. We can only observe the universe we happen to have formed in.

Yes there is...and the most plausible "rule" is the SBBM which most plausibly indicates that there are no other universes.
It seems like you are arguing for the solution...... that it’s simply turtles all the way down.

 

[remez]

Honest invitation here............

What if the constituent energy/matter of the universe is eternal even if this universe's particular configuration of it is not eternal? That's one example we presented when we discussed this some weeks ago, and now again.

I don't think it would surprise to know I would find that hypothesis implausible compared to the SBBM.

But I thank you for presenting it, because I would actually like to use this opportunity to specifically provide my reasoning why. Not to in anyway be pompous, but I really want you to show me where you think my reasoning is wrong. I'm being genuine here. I want to understand the differences in our reasoning regarding the origin of the universe.

Quick foundation.

A sound argument..........

1) It has to be logically valid. That means the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic.
2) The premises are true.

.... So if the argument is sound then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

But that is NOT enough for and argument to be a GOOD argument, because we need to offer some reason that the premises are true.

In other words the premises require some degree of justification. BUT HOW MUCH?

That is the huge hidden issue, and here is my pov on that.

From my pov the premises don't have to be known to be true with certainty, b/c we know almost nothing with certainty. That is a huge position for you to understand here in regards to my pov. Open for discussion of course.

So reasonably (I think) the premises have to be more plausibly true than their negations or alternatives.

If the premises are more plausibly true then their negations or alternatives and the logic is valid then You have a GOOD argument.

So returning to the context of your offered alternative........

What if the constituent energy/matter of the universe is eternal even if this universe's particular configuration of it is not eternal? That's one example we presented when we discussed this some weeks ago, and now again.

Your alternative is the matter and energy maybe eternal although the universe is not.
OK
My premise is... the universe began to exist

So lets reason through that choice..........

First when I say that the universe began to exist I mean that ALL matter, energy, space and time came into existence from materially nothing. There was no matter, no energy, no space, no time. I support that with the SBBM.

Now that needs this further extension of reasoning.....

You would of course object that the SBBM does not with certainty tell us how the universe began. And I would agree that is is not absolutely certain.
But remember the issue of certainty ....certainly can't be determined here.

So I reason through the plausibility of the science here. The SBBM more plausibly indicates that the universe, all of physical reality, to include matter, energy, space and time began to exist from nothing. Rendering your alternative far far far less plausible. Much of the literature by cosmologists today would bear out my reasoning of the implication of the SBBM is that All of physical reality began to exist. Time, matter, energy and space are not eternal, not with absolute certainty but Planck so close.

So again......
Your alternative is the matter and energy maybe eternal although the universe is not.
OK
My premise is... the universe began to exist

So which is more plausible to believe?
Where do you see that my reasoning is in error?
What reasoning leads you to suggest your alternative?

Before addressing those concerns PLEASE note that I have said nothing of God here. So please leave him out of it for now. The reasoning of his involvement occurs latter in the argument. Please focus on the material of this post.

I genuinely want to understand.

 

[remez]

If the universe includes any eternally existing causal factors that give birth to 4+ dimensional spacetimes, the universe doesn't begin to exist.

Which is more plausible to believe.......

The whole universe has a finite past
or
the universe has eternal parts?

IMO your alternative......sounds like a nature of the gaps faith...... to me.

If you are defining the universe as the spacetime we live within and everything within it, sure.

I do. That is the traditional definition. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. So thank you for your candor there.
But..............

If you define it as the eternal pre-existing spacetime and matter that somehow created the section of spacetime our cosmos resides within,

I don't define it that way I define it the traditional way. Altering the definition to yours....to my reasoning.... is a desperate nature of the gaps equivocation. It just has to be natural. It just has to......

the whole concept of "eternal things having a beginning" is... well.

....is... well................. WHAT?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Again, we can look out and see a Universe that is material and physical. We can see no sign of anything that can be called supernatural. To claim all comes from a supernatural being is thus questionable. The problems that God has, his goodness and existence of evil et al, calls this God thing into question logically speaking. To avoid all of that, one has to drop any claims revelation are true, leaving a much lessor species of God, that has no evidence for it's bare existence.

The idea of an eternal, infinite Universe is not illogical nor impossible and physics strongly hints to date this is the actual state of reality,

The idea that there is a God that somehow has always existed, is personal, having will and intelligence and personhood, and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent cannot be said to have any realistic underlying rational explanation for being all of that. It's a hypothesis derived from crude mythology that moved from crude mythology to a crude sort of perfect being theology, full of propositions and nothing much more. It's not like anybody has shown any true evidence for God.

The modern day physics and cosmology has evidence to support cosmology's basic claims claims.

 

[Juma]

Your equivocation here is wrong (google types of explanation)
and
Irrelevant because............this is the context...........

A simple question of analysis.

like 12 is a number
is it odd or even?

The universe is a thing.
Is it necessary or contingent?

That's it.

"p1 Everything that exists has an cause for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."

See.... there you go again!

again? that was the conclusion of the argument I made but maybe you didnt understand that...

there is no such property as being "necessary". how do you observe that property? how do you measure wether something is necessary or contingent? you cannot.
they are dreamt up by theologicians...

There is no indication that there are rules that dictate how universes work. We can only observe the universe we happen to have formed in.

Yes there is...and the most plausible "rule" is the SBBM which most plausibly indicates that there are no other universes.
It seems like you are arguing for the solution...... that it’s simply turtles all the way down.

The SBBM is no rule. its an observation. its an observation of how THIS universe works.

 

[Kharakov]

Which is more plausible to believe.......The whole universe has a finite past or the universe has eternal parts?

The latter if you use the term universe to mean "everything that exists".

If the universe includes any eternally existing causal factors that give birth to 4+ dimensional spacetimes, the universe doesn't begin to exist.

IMO your alternative......sounds like a nature of the gaps faith...... to me.

Why?

If you are defining the universe as the spacetime we live within and everything within it, sure.

I do...

If you define it as the eternal pre-existing spacetime and matter that somehow created the section of spacetime our cosmos resides within,

I don't define it that way I define it the traditional way.

Ehh, well, the second definition comes up in various places, and it's technically an extension to the SBBM (the SBBM only traces the universe back to right after it was a small (<=Planck) volume).

Altering the definition to yours....to my reasoning.... is a desperate nature of the gaps equivocation. It just has to be natural. It just has to......

It would technically be artificial if it was intentionally created by beings in a precursor universe.

the whole concept of "eternal things having a beginning" is... well.

....is... well................. WHAT?

After "well" I said "Why don't you argue about it with untermensche?", which is a reference to a 1000 post argument untermensche engaged in about the nature of eternity.

If you really want to know- eternal means without end or beginning, lasting forever.

 

[remez]

wow.
There was a lot in that last post to comment on.

Again, we can look out and see a Universe that is material and physical.

- your reasoning needs to remain consistent. Much of what you believe about the material physical world you do not see. Electrons, quarks, numbers etc.

- If you are purporting a strict materialism and/or scientism then that needs a philosophical defense for you can not hold that belief strictly on an empirical basis. You reason to it and it is that self-refuting reasoning is what you are using to deny my philosophical position.

We can see no sign of anything that can be called supernatural.

Does reasoning count? For we do have very plausible signs that the universe/nature began to exist. Therefore it follows that if the universe/nature wholly began to exist then its cause is logically external to the universe/nature itself. AKA supernatural.

Further... reasoning has to count. Do you actually see electrons, quarts, branes, other universes, etc. or do you reason they exist?
I ask because your strict sense of empiricism if consistently applied would render these useful entities as unreasonable.

To claim all comes from a supernatural being is thus questionable.

- Of course it is. But based on reasoning from what we see there is good evidence that something must be necessary. And also based on good reasoning and evidence it is not the universe/nature or part of the universe/nature itself. Thus it's cause must be external to the universe/nature itself. AKA supernatural.

- remember at this point we are only trying to establish is the universe/nature is necessary. If not then by reason there must be something that is.

The problems that God has, his goodness and existence of evil et al, calls this God thing into question logically speaking.

- That's a different debate altogether. I don't see the conflict you purport.

- But I did like your logically speaking notion there. It is something that can be reached using logic even though we can't observe all parts of it. Consistency remember.

To avoid all of that, one has to drop any claims revelation are true, leaving a much lessor species of God, that has no evidence for it's bare existence.

- I'm not avoiding it. It is simply a different topic.

- That is your conclusion to the logic. I find it to be completely faulty but again that is a different topic. Right here all that is on the table is .... if the universe is not necessary then what must be the characteristics of that something that is the explanation of our contingent universe. No need to name what it is, just what are those characteristics?

The idea of an eternal, infinite Universe is not illogical nor impossible and physics strongly hints to date this is the actual state of reality,

- Actually that is not the case. The physics far far far more plausibly infers that the universe is not eternal in whole or part. Are they still looking for a natural cause? Of course. But as it stands now.....it is not as plausible in principal that they will find one. Meaning if all of nature began to exist then nature can not be its own cause.

The idea that there is a God that somehow has always existed, is personal, having will and intelligence and personhood, and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent cannot be said to have any realistic underlying rational explanation for being all of that.

It logically matches the characteristics of what must be the necessary cause of the contingent universe.

It's a hypothesis derived from crude mythology that moved from crude mythology to a crude sort of perfect being theology, full of propositions and nothing much more.

- Nice example of a genetic fallacy.

- Your reasoning here displays a lack of understanding to a great degree. It would be like me challenging evolution with... Oh Yeah if evolution were true then why are there still monkeys existing today?

It's not like anybody has shown any true evidence for God.

You're kidding.......There is a hole in the bucket Dear Liza. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzm9urjQbWU

Just what is it you are trying to do right now......refute some arguments offered as evidence for God's existence. Arguments that are supported with an abundance of science.
again...........

It's not like anybody has shown any true evidence for God.

It not like anybody has shown this evidence for God is not true.

The modern day physics and cosmology has evidence to support cosmology's basic claims claims.

I completely agree.

That same evidence infers that most plausibly the universe in part or whole is not necessary. "Something" else is.
That same evidence most plausibly infers that the entire universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause external to itself.
That same evidence most plausibly infers that all of nature began to exist, therefore it has a cause that is external to nature. AKA supernatural.

So where is the problem?

 

[remez]

how do you observe that property? how do you measure wether something is necessary or contingent? you cannot.

That is a curious question. Your question hints at a categorical error. It is like asking how much does love weigh?

You seem to be forcing some form of scientism into your assertions that these arguments have no evidence. Thus in order to defend your assertions you need to defend the epistemological foundation they are founded on. Because if your assertions are based upon a self-refuting epistemology than your assertions are meaningless. You don't just get to assume by default your epistemology is more plausible than mine. Need we explore that?
so..............
How do you measure a logical construct? ......with reason of course.

You don't measure a logical construct with meters, liters and grams. You examine the logic with reason.

they are dreamt up by theologicians...

Your oversimplified pejorative is lazy and immature.
Do you realize just who Leibniz was in history?
And...........
Your simplification of reasoning to dreaming speaks volumes.
It is statements like that which demonstrate your lack of understanding of the topic at hand and hint at a self-refuting epistemological foundation.

There is no indication that there are rules that dictate how universes work. We can only observe the universe we happen to have formed in.

Yes there is...and the most plausible "rule" is the SBBM which most plausibly indicates that there are no other universes.
It seems like you are arguing for the solution...... that it’s simply turtles all the way down.

The SBBM is no rule. its an observation. its an observation of how THIS universe works.

It was your terminology. So..........
What did you mean by "rules"?
and
Do "observations" make predictions?

 

[remez]

If the universe includes any eternally existing causal factors that give birth to 4+ dimensional spacetimes, the universe doesn't begin to exist.

IMO your alternative......sounds like a nature of the gaps faith...... to me.

Why?

Because the more plausible case as it stands right now is that our complete physical universe began to exist. And you seem to be just trying to alter the traditional definition to escape the theistic implications by simply filling your Planck gap with an assumed natural cause.
But..........
Lets go with your hypothesis for now. Even though it is already for more implausible. Lets say for the sake of investigation, that our present universe is part of some MV. It still does not affect the outcome of the KCA whatsoever. Make your case as to why the MV hypothesis would alter the outcome. All the MV models I have studied just don't get you and eternal past. That is what I have meant by it only kicks the can down the road. So lets journey down the road.

Which of these more implausible models is it that you see can get you an eternal past?
And How?