Is it likely that God exists.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause(Of its existence).
Things cannot pop into existence utterly uncaused out of complete nothing. If they could, we should expect to see it all the time. (Note: before you say the quantum vacuum is nothing, it is not. That would be to mistake the definition of nothing. Nothing, properly defined, is NOT ANYTHING. no time, no space, no matter, NOTHING.)
The universe began to exist.
this premise is supported by the modern big bang model. Even if there were a multiverse, it would have to have a finite beginning according to the Borde-Guth Vilenkin theorem. To quote Alexander Vilenkin:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Conclusion: the universe has a cause.
Properties of cause:
I am quoting William Lane Craig, from the Blackwell companion to Natural Theology.
1.A first state of the material world cannot have a material explanation and must originate ex nihilo in being without material cause, because no natural explanation can be causally prior to the very existence of the natural world (space-time and its contents). It follows necessarily that the cause is outside of space and time (timeless, spaceless), immaterial, and enormously powerful, in bringing the entirety of material reality into existence.
2.Even if positing a plurality of causes prior to the origin of the universe, the causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused, otherwise an infinite regress of causes would arise. (It is important to know the distinction between an Actual Infinity, and a Potential Infinite. A potential infinite is where infinity is merely an ideal limit, which is never reached. An actual infinity is a complete infinite set. )
3.Occam's Razor maintains that unicity of the First Cause should be assumed unless there are specific reasons to believe that there is more than one causeless cause.
4.Agent causation, volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause.
5.Abstract objects, the only other ontological category known to have the properties of being uncaused, spaceless, timeless and immaterial, do not sit in causal relationships, nor can they exercise volitional causal power.
Another reason it is FAR more plausible that God exists, is the extraordinary fine tuning exhibited in nature. If any of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature were to have been different even by the slightest bit, all interactive life would be utterly impossible. Here are a couple of examples:
Ratio of Electrons:Protons1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe1:10^59
and the Big kicker, the Ratio of Mass to Energy in the early universe:
This fine tuning is due to either:
Necessity,(These Constants HAVE to have these Values.)
Chance(We got really, really, REALLY lucky)
In this debate I will be defending the position of atheism.
Now I'm gonna address my opponents first argument. Kalam's argument or the Uncaused Cause argument is based on 3 premises where the third premise is the conclusion of the first two premises. Let me begin by saying that premise 1 is not true. Not everything needs a cause. Intuition is one of the enemies of science if you put too much trust in it. Things CAN pop into existence out of nothing. It sounds crazy but it does happen on quantum scale. If you wish you can read about quantum fluctuations. Logical arguments cannot be used to explain reality. Let me use Thunderf00t's example.
The second argument made by my opponent is the fine tuning argument. You believe that the universe was designed for life however it only appears designed. Only a small portion of our planet is habitable by humans. Everyday millions of us die from diseases, disasters etc. Only about 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe can support life. Most of the universe is just an empty space. We just so happen to live in a place that does support life. I'd be quite amazed if we lived in a place that can't support life. Then I'd believe in a divine power.
Not necessarily. Just because something is true, does not mean that it must be blatantly obvious that it is true. You yourself don't believe in the power of intuition, and yet you make an extremely intuitive argument. Inconsistencies aside, it is just BAD. Also, wouldn't it seem likely that false religions would try and incorporate bits of the true religion into it, thus blurring the lines between false religions and True religions. These other religions may have bits of truth, like in Islam or Judaism, so the waters of distinction are muddled. But that does mean they are all completely true.
Now, This argument is NOT about whether Christianity is true, (Though I would like to debate that). It is about whether or not it is likely that God exists. please do not bring up another red herring.
Divine Hiddenness. "The second argument made by my opponent is the fine tuning argument. You believe that the universe was designed for life however it only appears designed. Only a small portion of our planet is habitable by humans. Everyday millions of us die from diseases, disasters etc. Only about 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe can support life. Most of the universe is just an empty space. We just so happen to live in a place that does support life. I'd be quite amazed if we lived in a place that can't support life. Then I'd believe in a divine power."
First off, a planet which cannot support life,and has life on it, would by definition be a life supporting planet, regardless of the prior conditions established for a "life supporting planet". God did not make Man to be invincible. So why the heck would God put us on a life prohibiting planet where it is 5,000 degrees if we were not made for that?!? Plus,
Your dismissive attitude towards the Fine Tuning argument is kind of funny. "It appears designed, but it isn't". is'nt that presupposing atheism? If we have no rational warrant to believe that it is NOT designed, then we should accept that our observations that it is designed are true. Even if our world is not perfect, (Which even the bible says it is not), that doesn't by any means require it to not be designed. So you will have to deal with the problem with design as a valid option still.
Now if these constants were infinitesimally different, then that already minute 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe which supports life would be reduced to a 0%. We wouldn't be here, neither would ANY form of life. This is not an objection to, but an argument FOR fine tuning. For if the chance for life, even in a universe with the right quantities, is *that* small, then it is all the more miraculous that we are here! Our mere minuscule size compared to the rest of the of universe is irrelevant to our moral significance. Calling the vastness of the universe a "waste", is ridiculous when you are talking about a God who does not need to marshal His resources. The rareness of life in the universe would only serve to amplify our place in the cosmos, as sentient life like us, would be extremely rare in the grand scheme of things. Also, just because the universe is a dangerous place, does not mean it is not designed.
The Kalam cosmological argument:
Your "apple argument", has a major problem. First off, if your price for disbelieving in God is attacking the validity of deductive logic, your price for non-belief is WAYYY too high.
Secondly, it fails because things cannot go faster than the speed of light. There are things known as "Objections" to arguments, and this would be one of them. The first premise is true in some circumstances, but not ALL circumstances. Given how it is not a situation which You have not provided such an objection, merely an argument which is objectionable.
Also, I know about Quantum Fluctuations, where "Virtual particles" come into existence out of empty space. The Problem with this is that empty space is not nothing. The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy with a richly endowed structure, (Bernulf Kanitscheider, "does physical cosmology transcend naturalistic reason?") hardly what you would call "nothing". Plus, only in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, do the particles come in utterly uncaused, and this interpretation is becoming increasingly rare. The different interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically identical, though each has different metaphysical implications. The implications of the Copenhagen interpretation are ridiculous, like a particle traveling in all directions at once.
Their are metaphysical as well as scientific to believe that the universe began to exist.
(first we must distinguish between a potential and an actual infinite. A potential infinite is where infinity is merely an ideal limit which is never reached, like how far a coin will fall if dropped into an infinite well. an actual infinite is a complete infinite set.)
1. An actual infinite number of things cannot exist
2. a beginning-less series of events constitutes an actual infinite number of things.
3. therefore, the series of past events cannot be beginning-less
1. the series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. a collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite. (You can't count to infinity, and this is evident even in the abstractions of mathematics)
3. therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
Let me begin my second round by telling you a story of Roy Sullivan. Roy Sullivan was often referred to as "Human Lightning Conductor" or "Human Lightning Rod". He was in a Guiness Book of World Records as a person who survived getting struck by lightning 7 times. He lived in the U.S. Let's look at the U.S. Statistics. The chances of getting struck by lightning in a lifetime are roughly 1/3000. The chances of getting struck by lightning 7 times in a lifetime are (1/3000)^7 which is 4.57x10^-25 That's 0.00000000000000000000000457% chance. That's very small. Let's go further. Around 10% of people who get struck by lightning die. The chances of getting struck by lightning in an lifetime are roughly 1/3000. The chances of surviving are 9/10. 1/3000x9/10= 9/30000
The chances of getting struck by lightning 7 times and surviving are (9/30000)^7=2.187x10^-25
That's 0.0000000000000000000000002187% chance.
Of course we don't have theists going around and calling Roy Sullivan a Messiah despite the fact that he beat the odds.
Theists embrace the fine tuning argument because they don't like chance.
-This is too unlikely to have happened.
-The universe is too fine tuned to exist just by chance.
-The fundamental forces of nature are so precise that if they were even slightly different then the universe as we know it would cease to exist.
Atheists have heard that one before. I agree that this argument is a good argument. However, I have to tell you Sunfire, your conclusion is just wrong.
The universe as we know it would cease to exist if the fundamental forces were different. True. The universe would look different. And one of the things that the fine tuning argument relies on is the fact the fact that the probability of us existing is so low that something must have designed our universe. But it's not true. It IS all chance.
If you shuffle a deck of 52 different cards there are 52! different permutations you can have. That means there 52x51x50...3x2x1 different results you can have. Suppose you shuffle the cards and get a certain result. What was the likelihood of getting such result. 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008065817517% chance. Does that mean that this is some divine permutation. No. It could have been any other permutation.
We could have just as well not have existed at all. Life as we know it wouldn't exist if the universe was different but what is life? What are the necessary conditions for life? How can you be sure that life as we don't know it can't exist? I would like to see a theist calculate the probability of life to form. The problem is we don't know. Different conditions in the universe could still allow different life forms to exist. We are the lucky life form.
Of course the fine tuning argument can be explained by the multiverse hypothesis. Every universe was formed in different conditions and so different universes could have different laws of physics governing them. We just so happen to live in a universe that can support life, which is what you'd expect since we couldn't exist in a universe that doesn't support life.
Finally the fine tuning argument limits God. It states that there are only certain conditions in which he could have created life. What is stopping God from creating life in a black hole to show how powerful he is. The answer is... he doesn't exist.
But even if you dismiss all that then still there is a possibility that all of this just happened by chance. As I presented to you unlikely things do happen and if you look at the world around, you can realise that unlikely things are actually likely to occur.
Next let's talk about Kalam argument. It never happened to me before. For the first time ever in a debate my opponent agrees with me. Yes my apple argument is flawed. I agree. It was supposed to be flawed. It was supposed to be a poor attempts of explaining reality through logic and intuition. Uncaused cause argument was proposed by Thomas Aquinas who lived in the 13th century. Of course the Uncaused Cause argument would make perfect sense at that time just as much as my apple argument.
However now we know that premise one in both my apple argument and the uncaused cause argument are not necessarily true. What if the quantum vacuum is the eternal cause.
The Uncaused Cause argument is often used to prove the existence of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial being. However to me this is just a poor attempt to move God away from science. This makes him impossible to disprove. This is why "God exists" is a bad claim. Good claims in their nature are falsifiable as they rely on evidence to be true rather than lack of evidence to be true. How can a spaceless timeless and immaterial being exist? To convince me a theist would have to present to me physical evidence that something spaceless timeless and immaterial can exist. After all such being existed for 0 seconds, takes up 0 space and is made of nothing. No theist was able to do such thing. We know who has the Burden of proof.
Let's briefly look at the concept of infinity. My opponent claims that an infinite amount of events could not have happened. But I don't believe that this is necessarily true. Human mind can't grasp the concept of infinity. But that doesn't mean an infinite amount of events can't happen. My opponent has presented some philosophical dilly dally but has yet go show some proper evidence.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that my opponent believes in an afterlife. He believes that when we die we go to heaven or hell for eternity. Now if we spend an eternity in heaven or hell then given enough time an infinite amount of events could happen since the amount of time we spend in an afterlife is infinite. How is that possible? God did it. Therefore either afterlife is not eternal or the claim that " the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite" is false. Which one is it? I believe it's both.
Information about Roy Sullivan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Statistics on getting struck by lightning: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov...
Information about Thomas Aquinas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Improbable things happen all the time:
A "Sullivan", is not that suprising when you consider the fact that there are millions upon millions of people, thus millions upon millions of people to whom this could possibly happen to. It is one thing where you have had uncountable opportunities where this could happen, and another thing entirely when you have only one opportunity. Their is only one universe.
Each individual set of constants is equally improbable
the problem with your card illustration is that its concerned with why we have a particular permutation of cards. In that case, all card sets are equally improbable, and You would HAVE to get at least one certain shuffle. The problem here is NOT that it's improbable for any specific set of constants to be our set of constants. The problem here is that against insane, improbable odds, we have a set of constants which can support life.
The thing is, a life supporting universe happening by chance alone is ASTRONOMICALLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLY, CAPS-LOCK INDUCINGLY unlikely. Sure it may be infintesimally "possible" that our universe got these precise values by chance alone.
though these odds are insanely below what we would consider reasonably possible. If a level of precision of one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is required for life to be possible, then I think it is safe to say that life didn't happen by accident. An accuracy of even 1 in 10^60 is like shooting a bullet across the observable universe, 22 billion light years away, and nailing a 1 inch target.
By a "Life permitting" universe, I mean a universe where there is even the mere possibility of life. While we can't calculate the actual chances of life occuring(correct me if I am wrong); We still know the bottom lines for life. For example: Life needs stars, because without stars, heavy elements like carbon cannot form, and there is little to no warmth whatsoever. If the cosmological constant wasn't fine tuned , the universe expands to fast for stars to form. If the gravitational constant was any different by one part in 10^60, the universe would collapse back in on itself. In neither situation is their even the mere possibility for life. Life is defined in very conservative terms here: the property of organism to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. Anything which has these qualities would count as life, no matter what strange form it may take.
the Multiverse is unproven, and even if it did exist, it is highly unlikely that the multiverse wouldn't be fine tuned as well. Even with string theory, you only get 1^500 worlds, which is not even close to the monstrous 1 in 10^10^123 chance of the mass-energy ratio being jusstttt right. Plus, in any observable universe, it would be far more probable that we live in a universe where we are literally just floating brains who arose out of the quantum vacuum with delusions of an outside world, than it would be to be living in a universe with such incredibly high levels of order. This problem is known as the attack of the boltzmann brains. The boltzmann brain
I really fail to see how this is an objection. The basic rule something cannot come from nothing still holds. It just so happens that pushing things doesn't always speed them up. The speed of light is the maximum speed limit. But the problem here is I haven't heard a similar objection to premise one. You presented the quantum vacuum, but to assume the quantum vacuum is nothing would be a mistake, would be a mistake. Just because the Kalam is old, and convinced people back then, doesn't mean that it is therefore invalid.
It is unproved that a timeless spaceless being can exist.
I think it is a little bit late to say that don't you think? Your objection is merely an unjustified assumption that timeless spaceless beings are IMPOSSIBLE, a claim you have provided sans evidence. I have no burden of proof to bear, because as it rests right now, with no evidence against the possibility of a timeless spaceless being, it is possible that a timeless spaceless being can exist a priori. So the argument still flies unscathed. Not to mention that the kalam argument, if it succeeds, is evidence that a timeless spaceless being does indeed exist.
Also, God was timeless prior to creation, but temporal subsequent to creation, and so He hasn't existed for 0 seconds.
Why can't quantum vacuum be the uncaused cause?
The uncaused cause must be spaceless. The quantum vacuum is not spaceless, rather it is inextricably linked to space. the vacuum is only present within space, as space is what it essentialy is. No space, no quantum vacuum. Because the existence of the quantum vacuum is thus contingent upon the existence of space, (something which did not exist prior to the Beginning according to the Big Bang model)it cannot be the uncaused cause.
No proof for contradictions in an actual infinity
We understand infinity quite well actually; it is through this understanding that we see the absurdities associated with an actual infinite.
Hilberts hotel: imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and all of them are full. A single person walks up to the concierge, and asks, can I have a room. The concierge says yes, and sends the guy in room 1 to room 2, the guy in 2 to 3, ad infinitum. Now suppose an infinite number of guests arrive. He can accomodate them too!!! All he has to do is move every old guest into the room number twice their own, thus emptying all the odd numbered rooms. An infinite number of empty rooms, ripe for the taking. The concierge can keep on doing this as many times as he needs to!!! Now suppose all of the guests in the odd numbered roooms want to leave. An infinite number of guests have just left, and yet there is still an infinite number of guests in the hotel. Here, infinity - infinity is still infinity. Now suppose everyone above room 2, decides to leave as well. Suddenly in one fell swipe, the guest list is reduced to a mere 2 guests, (technically only one guest if you consider the guy who left room one). suddenly, infinity - infinity, is one! This is a logical contradiction: we have just subtracted identical quantities from identical quanties, and gotten nonidentical results! These absurdities are what we would have to accept if the idea of an actual infinity was possible in reality.
Heaven constitutes an actual infinite time:
No it doesn't. No matter how long you live in heaven, you will never have been their for an infinite period of time. Your existence in heaven or hell is potentially infinite, not actually infinite. A potentially infinity will never end, it will keep on increasing, though its duration will never reach infinity, much like a never ending series of A's and B's. However if the past were infinite, that would constitute an actual infinite number of events, as we already have a complete infinite set.
I would like everyone to notice that my opponent keeps making the same points. He has brought no new evidence in the second or third round.
First argument he states is the fine tuning argument. The universe is fine tuned for the existence of life. If we assume that the reason that the universe exists is so that it supports life then yes the fine tuning argument would apply. However there is no reason to make such an assumption. If we assume that life is just an accident and in fact if we look at the universe and how life vast it is, it is pretty easy to assume that life formed by chance. Could've happened anywhere else or nowhere at all. God and life are not dependent on each.
The fine tuning argument says that the laws of physics are so fine tuned to support life that a designer must have fine tune them. However current scientific evidence suggests that the first life on Earth emerged 3 billion years ago and the universe is about 14 billion years old. So going by theist logic the universe was not fine tuned for 11 billion years. God did not exist for 11 billion years then suddenly "pop" magically appears as first life form pops into existence. Of course this form of reasoning might sound stupid for my opponent but then again his form of reasoning sound irrational to me also.
The chance of the universal constants being the way they are, are astronomically small. I'll grant you that. However certain constants are interlinked which decreases the amount of possible ways in which a universe can be formed. For example you can't have a universe with a high expansion and a high gravitational constant. The electromagnetic force could be linked to the speed of light. There are possibly more constants that are also linked in such a way which brings the number of possible combinations of constants down.
The fine tuning argument also assumes purpose to our lives. They claim that a designer designed the universe for them. But what makes you objectively more important than the moon for example?
Lastly my opponent states that if the multiverse exists then it would also have to be fine tuned however he has no basis for such a claim. At one point he stages that with the string theory you only get 1^500 (That's equal to one by the way. I'm pretty sure you meant 1x10^500). However I have failed to find any source which states that you only get this amount of universes with the string theory. I would like you to provide me with this source otherwise I will treat it as a made up number.
The find tuning argument is dishonest because it claims itself to be a "scientific proof of God" However there is nothing scientific about jumping "something appears to be fine tuning the universe" to "therefore it must be a spaceless timeless immaterial rational and personal being. Making such a leap is irrational at least.
Before I leave the topic of fine tuning let me quote Douglas Adams
" Imagine a PUDDLE waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting HOLE I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it"
This to me sounds exactly like
"Imagine a MAN waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting UNIVERSE I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it"
The second point that my opponent makes is the Uncaused Cause. However as I have pointed out this is a flawed argument as it is not supported by observations. As I have already explained Premise 1 is flawed. The argument itself claims to know the answer to what the actual cause is. This is a bit like saying "the wind is caused by something so that cause must be God. Similarly saying " the universe had a cause therefore it must be God" is making an unsubstantiated claims.
My opponent claims that I have to prove that it's impossible for a spaceless timeless and immaterial being to exist. Let me quote my opponent.
"Your objection is merely an unjustified assumption that timeless spaceless beings are IMPOSSIBLE, a claim you have provided sans evidence."
However I have never stated that it's impossible for a spaceless timeless and immaterial being to exist. In fact this is what I said.
" How can a spaceless timeless and immaterial being exist? To convince me a theist would have to present to me physical evidence that something spaceless timeless and immaterial can exist."
The Burden of Proof does lie on the person making a claim that a spaceless timeless and immaterial being can exist. Until they find such evidence the argument will remain an argument from ignorance.
Now that I have done refuting both points let's go back in time. We must remember that the Bible was written by people who didn't know that disease was caused by bacteria. The Quran was written by people who didn't know the Earth was orbiting the Sun. Religion was invented by people who didn't know how rain is formed. And so they shoved in God as an explanation for those natural occurring phenomena. And of course they were wrong. How could they be right? In fact these people would be useless as scientists today as their explanations were based on ignorance rather than evidence. In a contest between science and religion, science will always win. In science we use evidence to draw our conclusions. In religion we draw conclusions and try to find evidence that supports our conclusion. This is why religion is flawed. We can use this technique to prove anything. In fact let me demonstrate.
Conclusion: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Now what evidence suggests that
-Planets are shaped like meatballs
-Our chromosomes and hair are shaped like Spaghetti
-When something gets sucked in by a black hole it gets stretched out. This is called spaghetification and this is how The flying Spaghetti Monster reveals how powerful he is.
-The universe is fine tuned for the existence of pasta.
It is really that easy. And therefore religion will never win against science. Science is not based on opinions and feelings. It is true no matter what you believe. Scientists will change the explanation for natural occurring phenomena if new evidence arises. For example scientists used to believe that the sun was orbiting the Earth however now we know that it's the other way around because of evidence presented. Theism has already jumped to a conclusion. God is always the explanation. Over 40% of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true. And if the evidence was different the Bible would still be true because it will pretend to be true. Creationists will always find scientific discoveries that just so happen to agree with the Bible while dismiss the parts that don't agree with it.
If for example there was undeniable proof that the universe was caused by cheese, theists would still claim that this is what the Bible said all along. Cheese would be the all powerful God. "But the Bible said that man was created in God's image... no no that's just a metaphor".
So let me briefly sum my point up. Science draws conclusions from evidence they find. Theists try to find evidence that proves the conclusions they draw while dismiss the evidence the disproves their conclusion.
First off: I keep on making the same points because I have yet to hear a sound refutation.If the universe began to exist, which modern science and the big bang theory support, and whatever begins to exist has a cause, the conclusion: "The universe has a cause" follows neccesarily. Neither of these premises have I heard an effective refutation of.
Multiverse number is unsourced.
Oh my bad. The number I picked was from leonard susskinds book: the cosmic landscape: String theory "The illusion of intelligent design." And the Problem is, These 10^500 worlds are not neccesarily actually existing, for these are merely possible worlds consistent with M-theory. Though the issue of Boltzmann brains is still a thing, (it is far more likely that we should be observing a much smaller area of order, and the most likely observer that would appear, would be a brain which arose from a quantum fluctuation, with delusions of an outside world)
the formulation of the fine tuning argument is by no means some horror show like the meatball argument. (A better comparison to the spaghetti argument would be Dawkins infamously bad, "Central argument" in the God delusion)
If you are going to interact with the fine tuning argument, don't do it by using poor analogies like the spaghetti monster.
The Fine tuning argument; (in deductive form)
1. The fine tuning in the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.(if you have some other 3rd option, I would like to hear it. Add it to the list so I can interact with it as well.)
2. Not Chance(Incredibly, ludicrously improbable) or Neccesity(The constants and quantities are entirely arbitrary, as these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. They could have been ANY other value.)
3. Therefore design.
Please interact with the argument in ITS ACTUAL FORM, as opposed to some pastiche of it made by "New Atheists" like dawkins or hitchens.
puddle quote:Once more a flawed analogy. The analogy between the puddle andman fails critically because in the puddles case, the hole would fit him no matter what. In the case of Humans("life"), we can ONLY fit in an incomprehensibly narrow range of values.
defense of kalam
whatever begins to exist has a cause: Now their are reasons besides just intuition to accept the validity of the first premise, besides merely the intuitive warrant. If things could come from nothing, that is the lack of everything and anything, it would be an utter contradiction. Nothing hasn o traits or properties, as it is not anything. By definition, "Nothing"could not have the property to bring matter into existence, otherwise it would be "something", having a trait. Also, empirical evidence supporting premise 1 exists: if something come from utterly and absolutely nothing, we would have to expect to see this all of the time, on all levels, for there is not anything that constrains nothing, for there is not anything to constrain!
and as for the conclusion being "Cause, therefore God.", look carefully at the syllogism I introduced in my first argument. If you are going to object to the cause being God, interact with that, not one of your ill-begotten analogies.
And as for the proof of the spaceless being, if the argument succeeds then it proves that there must have been a spaceless, timeless cause whichc caused the universe.
When it comes to the fine tuning argument it all comes down to probability. The universe is too unlikely to exist the way it is therefore someone (because apparently it must be someONE instead of someTHING) must have fine tuned it. However if I was to rename the fine tuning argument I would call it the "wave a lot of numbers, too unlikely, therefore God" argument, which is a form of a God of the Gaps argument by the way.
Because of the way how the fine tuning argument is presented it makes it seem like as if we are objectively important. "It is all fine tuned for us". And because of this it can be easily used against theists. If we were to play by your logic the laws of physics are fine tuned for the existence of the Andromeda galaxy correct? There are 2 possible answers you could give either " yes" or "no". If your answer is no then you are contradicting yourself. Why? Because you give a biased answer which makes your argument less credible. Saying no means stating that if the laws of physics were any different we wouldn't exist therefore the laws of physics were fine tuned for us, but at the same time state if the laws of physics were any different then the Andromeda galaxy wouldn't exist therefore the laws of physics were NOT fine tuned for the existence of the Andromeda galaxy. Obvious contradiction. How do you know the laws of physics were fine tuned only for us? Emotions? However if you answer "yes" then this argument can be used on any object in the entire universe. You can then say that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of the black hole that is probably in the centre of the milky way. We can say that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of VY Canis Majoris, the largest star that has been discovered. And suddenly we become less important. Was the universe really fine tuned for us? Or maybe it was fine tuned for something else. Or maybe it wasn't fine tuned at all?
I love maths. It's my favourite subject along with physics. The reason why I bring up maths is because the fine tuning argument relies on it. In maths there are 2 types of probability- theoretical and experimental. The probability that my opponent talks about is theoretical probability. Theoretical probability is when we calculate the results we should get. My opponent never mentions and never will mention experimental probability which is the actual result. Why? Because he doesn't know the experimental probability. Let me simplify the example before I go any further. If I flipped a coin 100 times you'd expect to throw heads 50 times and tails 50 times. This is theoretical probability. However if I flipped the coin and recorded my result then that would be then I would get experimental probability. My opponent presents theoretical probability but we know that it doesn't necessary agree with reality. There is no way of knowing that it does. We can't know how likely it is for the universe to support life because we have no data. In order to know it we would have to know both the amount of universes that support life and the amount of all of universes. Guess what? We don't know the value for any of these. We only have 1 set of results. We can only observe 1 universe and that is the universe that we live in. Just like flipping a coin knowing 1 result doesn't tell us what the other 99 results are, similarly we can't know how many universes support life if we can only observe our own universe.
As to flipping the coin 100 times you are unlikely to get the result you expect (50/50). Same case with the universe. Statistically you are more likely to be wrong than to be right.
As to one thing you said and let me quote
"If something come from utterly and absolutely nothing, we would have to expect to see this all of the time, on all levels"
The thing is that we do see things come from nothing."
I already mentioned that before. They are called quantum fluctuations. They come from nothing (no necessarily lack of anything).
I would like to inform you that I'm taking a part in a school competition in 2 days and I need to prepare for it. I have been preparing for it. Therefore I didn't have a lot of time to respond to your arguments. Nonetheless I do hope I made a good case against fine tuning. Luckily the competition will be over before round 5 begins therefore I will have time to write a proper conclusion.
When you talk about comparing "the universe has to have VERY specific quantities to even allow the possibility of life", with the claim "the universe has to be fine tuned for the existence of the andromeda galaxy, or the existence of VY Canis Majoris", you make a big mistake. Life is a very general and loose definition here, its anything with an "organized structure performing a specific function, an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment, an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment, capable of adapting, and an ability to germinate or reproduce"
Not only have you failed to provide evidence for the fine tuning of the various objects, merely an "its possible that the universe is", but you effed up again here. Nowhere in the syllogism does it state that the universe has to be fine tuned only for life, so if there were other "possibilities" (like the possibility of stars to form) where the values need to be precise as well, it would do nothing to invalidate the argument.
Theoretical probabilities, while unlikely to be exact(now. If the probabilities aren't exact, then it doesn't mean the ranges have widened. The error would have been due to some other factor which interfered with the pure arbitrarity these values have. which would seem unlikely given that these constants aren't determined at all by the laws of nature. Nothing is here but the pure chaos of chance)
My opponent argues that because any object which exists is fine tuned for, therefore the fine tuning isn't all that specia". This analogy ONCE AGAIN fails because the "possibility of life", is not some object like VY Canis Majoris, or the Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way. It is a range of values within within which life is possible, not a range of values within which a specific lifeform can exist.
Not only have you failed to provide evidence for the fine tuning of the various things, merely an "its possible that the universe is fined tuned for ____", but you effed up again here. Nowhere in the syllogism does it state that the universe has to be fine tuned only for life, so if there were other "possibilities" (like the possibility of stars to form) where the values need to be precise as well, it would do nothing to invalidate the argument.
If these particles don't come from "not anything" as you put it, then the logical equivalent to that is that statement is that these particles came from something. if it comes from something, then it didn't come from nothing.
You have just implicitly admitted that the quantum vacuum is not nothing. So your objection to the first premise pretty much killed itself.
Now, if by "not neccesarily", he means that somehow these emanations arise from UTTERLY nothing, he would have to deal with all of the absurdities resulting in such a ludicrous idea.
When I say we should see it all the time, I was saying that because there is nothing to prevent "Nothing" from creating things larger than particles, for there isn't anything to constrain! We wouldn't just see this happening with tiny particles, but with narwhals and cars, or anything you could imagine! And yet we don't ever see this in real life. So premise one is constantly verified, and never falsified.
Patrykh forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|