The Instigator
Vulpes_Inculta
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 15 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,258 times Debate No: 32981
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (15)

 

Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

I am challenging Magic, an atheist, to a debate about the soundness of the cosmological argument. Soundness means that the premises of the argument are true, and that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. God is defined as the timeless (therefore beginningless), immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing.

The cosmological argument for this debate will be the one that William Lane Craig Uses. Everything that begins exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause.

The first round is for acceptance. In round two, I will present my argument and allow Con to give a rebuttal. After that, I will respond to Con's rebuttal in round three. In round three, Con will reinforce his rebuttal while asking me a few questions as part of a Q&A. In round four, I will answer his questions and give my own. The final round will be Con answering the questions I asked of him.

My burden of proof in this debate is to show that the cosmological argument is more plausible than the negation by inference to the best conclusion. Con's obligation is to negate my argument. General rules of conduct should be followed. Using pictures and images as quotes/references/arguments is acceptable.

Vale.
Magic8000

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

The cosmological argument is a simple argument for the existence of god. The premises go like this:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe had an (uncaused) cause. [1]

The argument is in a logically valid Modus ponens. [2] If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then it logically follows that the universe had a cause. The only issue with this argument is the truth of the premises. Therefore, I will attempt to demonstrate the premises to be true.

Premise one is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason.[3] The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a philosophical principle postulating that everything must have a reason for its coming into being. I think that there are very good epistemological reasons to accept the PSR as true. How would we practice science if things came into being without any cause? Science is predicated on the idea that there are explanations for why things happen, and we should go out and discover the cause of why it happened. It’s deeply anti-scientific to suggest that things can begin to exist without reason. [4]

There are three major explanations for the origin of the universe. The first explanation is that the universe came from nothing, without cause. This view is advocated by Lawrence Krauss and his book A Universe From Nothing.




The second explanation is that the universe existed eternally. If the universe existed eternally, then it never began to exist. Therefore, it doesn't require a cause according to the cosmological argument. Victor J. Stenger thinks that this is the best explanation. This is an excerpt from an article he wrote for the Huffington Post.



The final explanation is that the universe had an absolute beginning. This hypothesis that the universe had an absolute beginning is the most convincing of these three, so premise two is upheld. Let’s investigate the three hypothesis and their plausibility.


The universe couldn’t have come from nothing without cause. This is affirmed by the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit [8]. In English, this means ‘’Out of nothing, nothing comes’’. There is no way for something that exists to come from a state of absolute nothingness. I’ll give two arguments as to why this is true.



Firstly, the potentiality argument. If there is a state of absolute nothingness, then there is no potential for anything to happen. If there is no potential for anything to happen, then there is no potential for a universe to come out of nothing. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have come from state of absolute nothingness.



Secondly, the property argument. If you have absolute nothingness, then you have the universal negation of everything. Logically, you would then have the universal negation of all properties. But if something can come from nothing without cause, then that nothing does have a property. The property of something coming from it. By definition, something cannot come from an absolute nothingness, because then you never had an absolute nothing to begin with.

Dr. Krauss has argued that virtual particles are an example of something coming out of nothing. Critics savagely tore down this example in their review of his book. Consider what atheist philospher and physicist David Albert had to say in his New York Times review...



So, what about the eternal universe? Well, an eternal universe would require an absolute beginning. Cosmologists have explored the mathematics of an eternal universe and concluded that it had a beginning. Even if the universe existed forever, it still began to exist, so the eternal universe hypothesis does not refute premise two. [9]



All of the current astrophysical evidence demonstrates that the universe began to exist. On Steven Hawking’s seventieth birthday, cosmologists gathered to discuss the current state of cosmology. Physicist Alexander Vilenkin concluded his speech by saying , ‘’All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning’’. [10]




The cause of the universe beginning to exist is most plausibly god. The cause would exist before time, space, and matter, because it caused them to exist. The cause is, therefore, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. The most important thing is to show that this cause was a rational agent, and not some material or physical cause. Apeiron, DDO geophysicist and philosopher, explains...




It’s also important to note that something which can cause the universe to exist must be extremely powerful, which suggests omnipotence.

In conclusion, the cosmological argument establishes a cause of the universe that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, personal, and probably omnipotent. Using inference to the best conclusion, this cause is most likely god.

Vale.

References
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu......
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu......
[4] http://plato.stanford.edu......
[5] http://tinyurl.com......
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com......
[7] http://sententias.org......
[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
[9] http://www.technologyreview.com......
[10] http://www.newgeology.us......
[11] http://www.reasonablefaith.org......
[12] http://www.debate.org......e/1/
Magic8000

Con

Thanks to Pro

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.


A damage to premise 1 is Quantum mechanics. Under the mainstream interpretations of quantum physics, quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause.

Even in a perfect vacuum—a region of space containing neither matter nor energy—particle-antiparticle pairs (such as an electron and its antiparticle opposite, the positron) constantly appear and disappear in a time span too short to observe. Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing—not even from energy—it so happens that no laws of physics are violated because the particle is annihilated by its corresponding antiparticle before either one can be detected. Furthermore, for such events not to happen would violate quantum physics, which cites, via Heisenberg’s principle again, the impossibility of determining exactly the energy content of a system at every moment in time. Hence, natural, quantum fluctuations of energy must occur in empty space, even when the average energy present is zero.” [1]

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.” [2]


Science is predicated on the idea that there are explanations for why things happen, and we should go out and discover the cause of why it happened. It’s deeply anti-scientific to suggest that things can begin to exist without reason

If something did begin to exist with no cause at all, this would still be under science, as they couldn't just ignore it. As demonstrated, there does exist scientific models and theories for things that begin to exist with no cause.


Premise 2 and 3 I will not dispute.


Pro gives us three possible ways the universe came to be.

1. Out of nothing

2. Eternally
3. Began with a cause

I will not dispute 2, however I will defend the possibility of 1 and show that 3 if true doesn't give any more to theism than atheism.


Defending the possibility of 1.

Pro says that out of nothing, nothing comes. However I believe this can't be ruled out. In nothing does there exist any laws that say something can't come from it? If no, then the claim is unsupported, if yes, it's not nothing.

Pro gives 2 other arguments in attack of 1.


Potentiality


Pro says nothing has no potential to be something. However in nothing does there exist the law that says something needs potential to be actualized? This potential doesn't necessarily have to be a property, which brings us to your next argument.

Property


There's 2 problems with the argument. First, it's self refuting. If something can't come from nothing, then nothing would have to have some property that limits it. Second, if something could come from nothing, then this would be because of a
lack of property. In order for “something can come from nothing” to be false, it would need some property limiting nothing. Removing that property would result in the possibility of something coming from nothing.

If something cannot come from nothing, this begs the question “Can God do impossible things?” If yes, then doing something such as creating a rock he can't lift would be possible for him, but this would mean such a being can't exist. If no, then it must be logically possible for something to come from nothing.


Natural model.


There does exist plausible naturalistic mechanisms for the beginning of the universe.

...But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. Keep in mind E=mc^2 shows energy and matter are basically one in the same, they can transform into each other The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.[3]


Edward Tryon said

The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible.[4]


Tryon's model is falsified, but he set the stage. There's newer updated models that use the same foundations as Tryon. Like Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. His model states the universe came from an uncaused quantum tunneling event. [5]

There's no reason to assume God when talking about the creation of the universe.


Pro may point to Albert's review, however
David Albert's review really seems to be arguing against Krauss' redefinition of nothing, not against uncaused vacuum fluctuations or fluctuation models.

Why God?


Pro gives reasons why he thinks the cause must be God. I will postulate there's a strange
timeless, spaceless, complex, powerful and immaterial force that goes through many reactions called “Chroma” that is the origin of everything. What reasons should we accept God over the Chroma? His only reason is personal sentience.

His argument is from Apeiron, but this argument is flawed and makes some assumptions. First, if no laws existed before the universe, there would be no law of causality, no PSR, no laws at all! There wouldn't even need to be a cause. Second, it only shows that our current laws couldn't exist before the universe. This is obvious, but why couldn't there exist some other laws before the universe? Why couldn't the Chroma exist with no laws governing it? Just like there's no laws governing God. Sentience need not apply, since the argument only shows something spatio- temporal can't create the universe, if valid.


The resolution is negated

Sources

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...


[2] Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics.


[3] Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time


[4] Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?


[5] http://www.mukto-mona.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

Con begins by using examples from quantum mechanics to demonstrate that things happen without cause. I think that there are good reasons to be skeptical of his claim. Con’s examples assume that the Copenhagen interpretation is true. This interpretation has been widely abandoned due to the experimental vindication of Bell’s theorem. Scholarpedia says more about how Bell’s theorem puts the Copenhagen interpretation in dispute.[1]



Con's argument depends on a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is problematic because we really don't know what the proper interpretation of quantum mechanics is. The behavior Con talks about is only indeterministic on the Copenhagen interpretation, so Con has to ignore deterministic interpretations. Is this justified? I don't think it can be.

Con also tries to show that energy can come from nothing. However, this has the same problem as Lawrence Krauss's examples of virtual particles do. The quantum fluctuations that Con talks about occur in a vacuum state. This is assuredly not nothing. Wikipedia explains: [2]



Con accepts that the universe didn't exist eternally. Because he rejects the cosmological argument, he objects to explanation three as well. So, Con tries to demonstrate how our universe could have came from nothing in an atheistic world view.

The first argument Con gives essentially states that 'there are no rules on nothing, so something can from nothing'. This attempt at reifying negative terms can't work. Yes, there are no restrictions on nothing. But by the same token, nothing isn't able to do anything either! Con says that there are no restrictions on nothing, because otherwise there would be rules, which is something. Yet, Con doesn't apply that logic to reach the conclusion that something can't come from nothing as well. Think about it: if nothing was able to do something (have something come from it), then it wouldn't be nothing at all. It seems that Con is using one method of reasoning to get the conclusion he wants, but doesn't apply that method when it would support ex nihilo nihil fit.

Ironically, Con ends up supporting my original argument. Con says that my property argument makes no sense because the fact that something cannot come from nothing is a property of nothing. That's exactly the point I was trying to make! True nothing, with no properties, doesn't make any sense as a concept. There is no such thing as an absolute nothingness. Therefore, something cannot come from ir, because it wouldn't really be nothing. It always has at least one property. Con's arguments just demonstrate the point I was trying to make from the start.

I think it could be said that god created the universe from nothing. This doesn't make my argument contradictory at all. Remember, I said 'The universe couldn’t have come from nothing without cause.' I never said that the universe couldn't have come from nothing. My argument is that, on an atheistic world view, there is no way for something to come form nothing. As a theist, I have justification to believe that something can come from nothing, which is that god created the universe ex nihilo.

Con argues that the positive energy and the negative energy of the universe equal out, so there is no explanation as to why energy exists. It just came from nothing. This obviously doesn't explain the existence of positive energy and negative energy in the first place. If I owe Con five dollars, and I have five dollars in my pocket, then my total finances cancel out. It's absurd to suggest that there is no explanation for the existence of my money because of this. My money must have come from nothing!

Quantum tunneling doesn't allow the universe to begin to exist without cause either. [3]


It seems strange for Con to posit a naturalistic explanation of the universe beginning to exist. Nature (or physical things) only began to exist when the universe began to exist. So, how did physical things cause physical things to begin to exist? It's some weird form of causation where physical things cause physical things before physical things even exist. It simply makes no sense.

Con tries to parody the cosmological argument and put forward a timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial being called Chroma. 'Why choose god over Chroma?', Con asks mockingly. Well, it should be fairly obvious that Chroma is just god under a different name. This parody is a weak objection.

Ultimately, Con never refutes the idea that the cause is more plausibly personal than physical. Apeiron divided the explanation of the universe into two things: personal and scientific. It couldn't have been scientific (physical) because physical things can't explain why physical things exist. Logically, it would have to be a personal, rational agent. This line of reasoning is never anwered to by Con. Con just says that the universe doesn't have to have an explanation, which is interesting when you consider that Con said q
uantum tunneling event explains the universe just a few paragraphs ago. Interesting indeed....

Vale.

References
[1] http://www.scholarpedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...



Magic8000

Con

Premise 1

Pro appeals to deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. He falsely claimed the Copenhagen interpretation is widely abandoned. This couldn't be further from the truth. Your source doesn't say this either. The most accepted interpretation is the Copenhagen, then the many worlds (which does not help the conclusion of the Kalam at all ) [1]. My point in mentioning these particles is the fact that our current understanding of physics allows for such a thing is a blow to the first premise. If P1 was true, no interpretation should allow for such thing. These deterministic interpretations have serious flaws which is why they're unpopular. Victor Stenger points out.

" Now, there is a version of quantum mechanics, proposed by physicist David Bohm in the 1950s, in which quantum events do happen deterministically. Bohm dubbed this the "ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics." It is also known as the hidden variables theory. Although deterministic in principle, the theory itself does no better than the other versions of quantum mechanics in being able to predict only the probability of an event and not the actual outcome in every case. If one associates determinism with predictability, then Bohmian quantum mechanics is not deterministic. Furthermore, the theory requires instantaneous connections across the universe that violate Lorentz invariance, and this fact alone has made it unpopular among most physicists and philosophers. None of the interpretations of quantum mechanics provides a model that makes predictions for individual events in all cases. "[2].

Pro quotes wikipedia that says these vacuums aren't empty. However my argument here is that these particles are uncaused, not that they appear in nothing. Pro has wikipedia as a source, while I have Harvard. Which is more reliable? Furthermore it actually says these vacuums contain particles that pop in and out. So his own source doesn't agree with him.

Much ado about nothing.....literally

Pro attacks my argument. However it's undermined since if something could come from nothing it would be because it lacks a property. His objection is all based on a tu quoque fallacy. He says the argument can work both ways (it cannot) and says this is grounds for rejecting it. This is the fallacious tu quoque.

In the second argument, He states

"... my property argument makes no sense because the fact that something cannot come from nothing is a property of nothing. That's exactly the point I was trying to make!"

This would mean your argument is self refuting. Your conclusion was that something cannot come from nothing, not that nothing was incoherent. This means Pro committed the moving goal post fallacy. Something Pro never responded to was if something can come from nothing, it would be because it lacks a limitation (property).

Pro moves the goal post again in saying the universe cannot be uncaused from nothing.

"I never said that the universe couldn't have come from nothing."

However Pro said numerous times in R2

"There is no way for something that exists to come from a state of absolute nothingness"

"Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have come from state of absolute nothingness."

In fact in the last round he said nothing could not exist

" There is no such thing as an absolute nothingness. Therefore, something cannot come from ir(sic)..."

Inserting a being gets us no where. Pro believes God is the cause in a personal way. God would not be a cause in the sense that he was an actual physical thing acting, but the one controlling it. The arguments presented were not in support of something coming from nothing while being controlled, but that something cannot come from nothing in general.

Why a God?

Pro parodies these scientific theories with a simplistic fallacious false analogy. Gravity was just used to determine what the total energy of the universe was. Because if the total energy was zero, the model stands, since it relates to a possible origin. Pro would have to prove the total sum of money being zero relates to its origin of nothing. I certainly hope Pro understands that energy and money affect totally different parts of reality.

Pro quotes Craig in saying quantum tunneling must have laws with it. Craig never said or proved quantum tunneling has a cause or that this model is false. His argument assumes that the law are a product of the universe and not the other way around. No reason is given to support this. This also seems to move the goal post. We're talking about the origin of the universe, so why the question of where the laws came from?

By natural, I mean something not supernatural.

Pro committed a straw man fallacy when talking about the Chroma. I never said it was a being. I have no idea where Pro got that from. I said it was a force. No mind, no sentience, not a deity!

Pro ignores almost every single thing I said in my refutation of the personality attribute.

Con just says that the universe doesn't have to have an explanation, which is interesting when you consider that Con said quantum tunneling event explains the universe just a few paragraphs ago. Interesting indeed....

This is his only objection. Obviously I didn't just say the universe did not need an explanation, I actually never said that. I said if there is no laws, there needs no cause. I was saying this in a rhetorical sense, to use your own reasoning against you. Right after it I said

Second, it only shows that our current laws couldn't exist before the universe. This is obvious, but why couldn't there exist some other laws before the universe? Why couldn't the Chroma exist with no laws governing it? Just like there's no laws governing God. Sentience need not apply, since the argument only shows something spatio- temporal can't create the universe, if valid.

All that went ignored.

Q and A

Pro wants to end the debate with a Q and A.

1. If a scientific discovery came along and proved the Kalam to be false, would you automatically think the discovery is false, or would you accept it?

2. Why do you think the laws of physics are a product of the universe and not the other way around?

3. Why can"t other laws exist before the universe?

4. Do you think that you are looking for ways to make the conclusion God? Or are you objectivity examining evidence?

Thanks for an interesting debate.

Apologies for any double "". This is a glitch when you use debate.org from a mobile phone.

Sources.
_______________________________________________
[1] arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032
[2] Fallacy of Fine Tuning page 76.
Debate Round No. 3
Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

Answers
Q1: The question isn't specific enough to answer effectively. If some experiment were conducted that conclusively shows that the universe came from an actual nothing, then I would see no reason as to why god needed to cause the universe to exist. Personally, I have no stake in twisting the evidence to support my belief in the existence of god. I don't believe in a god that answers prayers or performs miracles, and tries to guide my life. I just accept the conclusions that I think the evidence leads to.

Q2: I just find it implausible that the laws of physics existed before the universe did. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have formed. How could the laws of physics that existed before be true every time? Imagine that the universe doesn't exist, and having a law that says 'Energy is neither conserved or destroyed'. But, the universe, once it begins to exist, could easily give rise to situations that contradict that.

Q3: There is simply no reason to think that’s the case.


Q4: I think I’m following the evidence where it leads. Like I said, my life would be the same if I thought god didn’t exist. I have no motivation to make up evidence to justify theism.

Questions

1: I think it’s important to clarify the purpose of my potentiality and property arguments. They are meant to show that, without god, there is no reason to think that something can come from nothing. When I say ‘’There is no way for the universe to have come from an absolute nothing’’ and ‘’It is impossible for the universe to have come from state of absolute nothingness.", I’m talking about a purely naturalistic framework. Those two arguments are meant to show that on atheism, there is no reason to think something can come from nothing. I’m not applying it to a theistic framework of how the universe began to exist. On a theistic framework, you have a plausible way of having creation ex nihilo. I think that this caused a lot of confusion during your last argument, because it seems as if I had contradicted myself. Have I sufficiently explained this discrepancy?

2: Let's imagine that the Bohemian interpretation is false. What reason is there to consider the Copenhagen interpretation to be true, especially when Bell's inequalities have put them into dispute? It seems to me that you never showed the Copenhagen interpretation to be true despite the evidence I brought against it. You just decided to attack the Bohemian interpretation while never establishing the Copenhagen one.

3: Yes, I never showed that the quantum fluctuations you talked about had a cause. That's because the idea that they don't have a cause is based upon an interpretation that I attacked before. Do you understand why I didn't try to show they had a cause?

4: You accused me of making a tu quoque. I don't think that's an accurate criticism. The argument you gave said that because there are no metaphysical principles on nothing, nothing can come from something. I pointed out that the statement is a metaphysical principle in itself (there are no rules). I was showing that the argument is contradictory because stating that there are no metaphysical principles is establishing a metaphysical claim in and of itself. I was trying to argue that you were actually contradicting yourself. The claims about you being inconsistent comes with the realization that you think there's nothing nothing can't do, but there's something nothing can do. It was two prongs: the contradiction and the inconsistency. You only answered to the latter. Your thoughts/response?

Vale.
Magic8000

Con

1. Yes, you explained it in your last arguing round. What I was saying was that God would be the cause in a personal sense, controlling the physical. Your arguments are against the physical acting in such a way. The reason I inculuded those quotes was because you said "I never said that the universe couldn't have come from nothing".

2. Stenger"s quote did imply a good reason why the Copenhagen interpretation is more likely. Deterministic interpretations have never made a successful prediction of said events, which makes indeterministic interpretations more likely. My argument was that the fact a plausible interpretation exists that allows such a thing is a problem for premise 1.

3. Yes. The reason why I brought it up was because you quoted Wikipedia saying these vacuums weren't empty. If you just brought up the interpretation objection, I wouldn't have brought this up.

4. I didn't address it because, it contradicted your original argument. My thoughts on this are, simply not having something isn't the same as having something. Being broke is a way of describing someone with no money. Being broke isn't possessing something.

Great debate. Thanks Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

[We agreed to leave this round as a conclusion round.]

First and foremost, I'd like to thank Con for this debate. I found his objections to be very interesting and challenging to my position. Suffice to say, I spent a lot of time researching the various interpretations of quantum mechanics in order to respond to his arguments. These are the most original arguments against the CA that I've encountered in my experience, so credit to Con.

I don't think that the Copenhagen interpretation was sufficiently supported during this debate. I brought up the issue of Bell's inequalities to show that the Copenhagen interpretation had issues. Now, Con can show that there aren't too many people who reject the Copenhagen interpretation. That still doesn't answer the original argument from Bell's inequalities, however.

Con also suggested that the laws of physics might exist before the universe. On second thought, I think that it's possible for these laws to exist in a very abstract way. I just think it's unclear as to how they would have any casual effects on anything real.

Con also points out that my Wikipedia source mentions particles that pop in and out. I think this is supposed to prove that I inadvertently disproved ex nihilo nihil fit. I've already said in other debates that I don't doubt the existence of virtual particles or the physics behind it. I just disagree with the conclusions that people such as Krauss try to make from it.

Ultimately, there are things I would have said differenly in this debate if I had a second chance. I think I rushed some of my arguments. I'd be interested in debating Con again at a later point, no matter what the result of this debate is.

Thank you to Con for his participation, and thank you to all the voters for reading.

Vale.
Magic8000

Con

This was really a fantastic and fun debate. Thanks Pro

Different interpretations are somewhat irrelevant when you consider what I arguing. These deterministic interpretations have flaws, which was pointed out. Premise 1 was unsupported.

I believe I've shown, if the first 3 premises of the CA are valid, the conclusion that a being caused the universe doesn't follow. One can make the conclusion that a non sentient Chroma outside of laws was the cause. Nothing Pro argued for would rule such a thing out. Even the personality objection only says physical laws couldn't be the cause. Occam"s razor would in fact favor a Chroma.

The models proposed by science show that it's possible the universe can be caused perfectly without such a being. I addressed all objections ruling out the possibility.

I've also seen no good reason why ex nihilo nihil fit is true. His objections were conflating not possessing something with actually possessing something.

This debate has allowed me to gather up my objections and put them in one place. Great debate, I hope people enjoy reading it, as I did participating in it.

Thanks again!
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
If there is nothing governing nothing, then we cannot say what will happen or not happen. To say something would not happen if there was nothing, is to say there is something governing nothing preventing this. This would negate the original conclusion that we were discussing nothing.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
The no potentiality argument fails, because no potentiality would include no potentiality for a universe that did not begin to exist. This means, we are at 50/50 and would not know if something could come from nothing. Also, if there is nothing that includes no restrictions. Claiming that something cannot come from nothing is restricting nothing. The potentiality argument fails because it is self-refuting. It says nothing has no properties, but that it self is giving nothing a property have having no properties.
Posted by Vulpes_Inculta 3 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
Uhh, Bullish...I answered that very specifically in my round. Also, simply admitting the logical *possibility* of something doesn't get Con anywhere. Your vote is longer, but that does not make it better.
Posted by Vulpes_Inculta 3 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
The picture text doesn't have to be read, honestly. It's just there if you don't take my word for it.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
I do hate walls of picture text..
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
AnthraSight

QM wasn't my only objection. I really feel you're not understanding the reason I brought it up. My argument wasn't that QM absolutely directly destroys the first premise, it was the first premise is unjustified.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Vulpes_Inculta, I see you are no longer accepting challenges, but I believe you would make a worthy opponent, so I can't resist challenging you to a debate. I've already started one, and as of this comment no one has yet accepted, but hopefully you will. If not on this occasion, then I hope I'll have the opportunity to debate you another time. Best wishes.
Posted by Vulpes_Inculta 3 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
Etiam, ego sum Typhlochactas.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
I think it is Smithereens. Who else does the Ave/Vale thing?
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Typhlochatas? Is that you?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: After reviewing the whole debate, I have to say that both sides presented their cases quite well, however I tend to agree with Vulpes himself that there were a few arguments of his that felt rushed. The money analogy felt very strawmanish, and the Chroma attack was never really properly responded to, because con was never assuming any sort of sentience for it, and yet as far as we can tell from Pro's lack of rebuttal, it still seems to stand on at least the same explanatory footing as Pro's deist conception, or maybe even better thanks to Occam's razor. My friend Vulpes will be pissed at me, but if I vote my conscience I have to support Con's side of the case.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con took care of all the potentiality arguments. Pro did not answer the rebuttals sufficiently. That was all that was needed to undermine the KCA because we were left with no reason to believe that something cannot come from nothing.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter davidtaylorjr.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't think Pro truly justified ex nihilo nihil fit as necessary. I also feel he took too much of his initial rounds from other sources quoted directly, even with his explanations.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Con well stated why the CA is not sound, and Pro did not answer the questions satisfactorily. \n I read this debate a few days before I had my voting privileges. I am sorry that my RFD was not specific enough. I will take back my vote and come up with a better RFD in a few. \UPDATED - Quote Pro: "There is no way for something that exists to come from a state of absolute nothingness". (I looked again, not contradiction) Does not tie to cause. Quote Con: "..our current understanding of physics allows for such a thing..". And, "On second thought, I think that it's possible for these laws to exist in a very abstract way." Concession, Pro's objection noted, but does not constitute change of vote on my part. Disputes on QM disregarded. CI and Determinism not addressed deep enough.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering AnthraSight.
Vote Placed by AnthraSight 3 years ago
AnthraSight
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro by far had the easier time here. Quantum mechanics is a flimsy objection and Pro give solid reasons for this being the case. Also, Pro did better with sources- he provided more reliables.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter SA. Pro gave specific warrants for why the cause had God-like qualities. It isn't enough to say that the leap was "baseless" that's voting on your opinion not the debate
Vote Placed by Billdekel 3 years ago
Billdekel
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Always love reading Magics debates. spelling to magic because Vul had various typos. sources to Magic because his were scientific from places like Harvard. Vuls round 2 sources were just the main pages of the websites. Magic did a great job showing out of nothing nothing comes was unsupported. He gave good responses to premise 1. Vul never went after his personality objection or chroma objection which pro said was a being. We have all seen the arguments that Pro gave before. Con had fresh and new responses.
Vote Placed by SuperiorArsenal 3 years ago
SuperiorArsenal
Vulpes_IncultaMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a pretty good job at refuting the arguements, though not fully in some cases. Pro lost the argument for me when he made the nearly baseless leap that it must be God that made the universe because absolute nothing cannot do it. Very fallicious if you ask me.