Normal

1. All things that being to exist have a cause

What have we ever witnessed begin to exist? Something does not begin to exist because we invent it, we transform things that are into other things that are. This first premise is a completely unobserved phenomenon. If you bring in virtual particles appearing in a vacuum as evidence of things that being to exist, these particles are currently believed to be uncaused, so the premise is self-defeating.

What the presmise should say is that any state of affairs X is caused by a state of affairs Y + time + momentum. What this has to do with the universe having a cause quickly becomes apparent to be irrelevent.

2. The universe began to exist

Did you begin to exist, or were you just the result of natural processes from things that already exist? By induction, your "birth" and the "birth" of the universe would be of the same characteristics, that is, natural processes.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The universe only had to be in a state of affairs X such that it's beginning would appear to be a beginning to us in our current state of affairs Y. This speaks nothing to the supernatural nature of the state of affairs at X, and thus, this argument fails.

xorbie

No offense, but this is not what I would consider "thorough."

The way you handle premise #1 is decent enough, but I would stop with saying that it is not actually a premise, but needs to be logically deduced because, as you state, we have never actually seen matter be created, so we don't know the principles behind it - or whether it needs to be caused.

I don't understand your complaint with premise #2. The universe began to exist - THIS IS A FACT!

With regards to the conclusion, I would say that until premise #1 is dealt with, it is obviously not a logically decuced one. However, even if premise #1 is proved, this is not a proof of God, only a proof of a cause.

Huh!? If you are gonna be thorough, try to more lucid in your arguments. It's beginning would appear to be a beginning? Why wouldn't the beginning appear to be a beginning? Is this state of affairs X at the beggining? That little bit appears to me not to be gurmane to the rest of your objection at all.

Normal

I agree, I should of used to word "Sketched". I actually wrote it just before I went to bed and got the words confused in my head.

The universe appears to begin to exist, using induction based on current evidence. Did the singularity spring into existence from nothing, or was the "birth" of the universe the result of natural processes? Using induction we should assume the latter over the former.

State of affairs X would be the big bang, which appears to be the beginning of the universe based on induction back into the past, from our current state of affairs Y. I'm challenging that it wasn't' actually the beginning of whatever existed, just the apparent beginning. For example, to use the analogy from the birth of a person, there existed the means of conception before conception takes place, yet conception is the "beginning" of the process of life.