If it was proposed that a particle came into existence, then the claims that may be made about this event are that it was:
- Necessary
- Possible
- Impossible
There is no 4th alternative. Moreover, the 3rd can obviously be dismissed. Thus two cases remain to be considered as follows:
If it was supposedly necessary, then this necessity could either be claimed to be:
- Intrinsic to the particle or
- Extrinsic to the particle
There is no 3rd alternative. The first is clearly self-contradictory, because the event did not exist, and what does not exist cannot be intrinsically necessary in existence. It follows that the supposed particles’ supposed necessity of existence must be from other than it.
If it was supposedly possible, then it follows that the possibility of its existence must have outweighed its prior non-existence. Otherwise it would have remained non existent. This outweighing could either be claimed to be:
- Intrinsic to the particle or
- Extrinsic to the particle
There is no 3rd alternative. The first is clearly self-contradictory, because the event/particle did not exist, and what does not exist cannot have any influence on anything. It follows again that the supposed particles’ existence would have to be from other than it.
With this understanding of “cause”, it is clear that to propose that something can begin to exist without a “cause” is absurd.
Hence, the atheist contention that we do not know if something can begin to exist without a cause is absurd.