Editing Cosmological argument (section)

=== "Does the universe need a cause?" ===

Craig maintains that the [[causality|causal principle]] is predicated in the [[metaphysical]] [[Rationalism#Intuition/deduction thesis|intuition]] that ''[[nothing comes from nothing]].'' If such intuitions are false, he argues it would be inexplicable why anything and everything does not randomly come into existence without a cause.<ref name="craig-sinclair"/> Yet, not all philosophers subscribe to the view of causality as ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' in [[Justification (epistemology)|justification]]. [[David Hume]] contends that the principle is rooted in [[experience]], therefore within the category of ''[[Empirical evidence|a posteriori]]'' knowledge and subject to the [[problem of induction]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/ |title=David Hume: Causation |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=2025-01-14}}</ref>

Whereas [[J. L. Mackie]] argues that cause and effect cannot be extrapolated to the origins of the universe based upon our inductive experiences and intellectual preferences,<ref>{{cite book|last= Mackie|first= J. L.|title= The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God|page=85|year= 1982|publisher= Oxford University Press|isbn= 978-0-19-824682-4}}</ref> Craig proposes that causal laws are unrestricted metaphysical truths that are "not contingent upon the properties, causal powers, and dispositions of the natural kinds of substances which happen to exist".<ref name=CraigPC>{{cite web | url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/must-the-beginning-of-the-universe-have-a-personal-cause-a-rejoinder | title=Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder | author=William Lane Craig | website=Reasonable Faith }}</ref>