The Instigator
kenballer
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,614 times Debate No: 22195
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

kenballer

Pro

I changed it. Just remember that my approach is suppose to be scienctific or of a scientist not a philosopher like William Lane Craig and other debaters attempt to do. So its a little bit different. I expect you to debate and argue under this context:

I am arguing that the God Hypothesis indeed qualifies as a scientific explanation as well as the best one for several reasons. It is a rationally conceived hypothesis, it does not violate occam's razor, there is enough evidence that would describe the nature of this cause from connecting the data points, and most importantly its falsifiable.

First Round is for acceptance of this only
wiploc

Con

I accept. Thanks, this will be interesting.
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Pro

FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT

1. Philosophically, its one thing to concieve of an infinite regress of causes, but its another thing to translate it into reality. For instance, a perfect circle is mathematically possible but actually drawing a perfect circle in general is impossible. This means an infinite set only exist in the mind or the realm of mathematics not in reality, and there cannot be an infinite regress or set of causes. There has to be an uncaused first cause that is limitless by nature.

However, this first cause could not be the universe because if there was an infinite number of past events, we would have never of gotten here. For example, if I told someone that before I go to bed to sleep I will flip the light switch for an infinite amount of times, would I be able to go to bed still? the answer is NO. Since Time is part of the universe, then it follows that if time was infinite we would have never of gotten here in the first place.
Thus, since the first cause cannot be the universe, it must be some transcendent entity apart from the Universe ,which is the First cause. I will call this first cause the God Hypothesis .

2. Now, its time to discover the properties and provide evidence of this cause (i.e. God Hypothesis):

THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE

A. The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity , which was co-authored by Hawkings and Penrose clearly states that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning. This theorem has been shown to be 8 decimals accurate along with general relativity created by Einstein to be 5 decimals accurate.

In addition, Borde, Guth,Vilenken developed a theorem which proves that ANY universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion greater than 0 throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space time boundary. This theorem holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe. Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse", their theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well.

Since the Law of Cause and Effect states that for every effect there must be a cause for it, we can assume and verify a cause. This means the universe coming into existence out of nothing would be the effect therefore we can assume a cause.
However, it also means whatever caused this beginning must have been a changeless, timeless, and an immaterial being that created the universe. It must be timeless and therefore changeless without the universe because it created time. Since it also created space, it must transcend space as well and must therefore be immaterial not physical. Thus, the properties of this cause would be omni-present, eternal, and immaterial.

DISEMBODIED MIND

B. There are only two possible candidates that can possibly fit such a description of an immaterial, omnipresent, and eternal entity: either an abstract object (like a number) or a disembodied mind (or consciousness). However, abstract objects do not stand in casual relationships. For instance, the number 9 cannot do anything.

Only an unembodied mind would stand in causality since minds are metaphysical and have free will. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain how you can get a temporal effect with a beginning from an eternal cause. If the cause is there, then the effect would have to be there once the initial conditions of the effect are given.

Therefore, it follows logically that the cause of the universe is a personal disembodied mind for it to have the intrinsic desire and then freely choose to act upon that desire to create a universe that allows the existence of intelligent life.

ALL-KNOWING

C. The fundamental laws and constants of nature fall under an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values ,within an infinite set, in which the right value was chosen every time. The slightest change in these values would prevent our life-permitting universe. In addition, these perfectly calibrated laws and constants to allow the existence of intelligent life came into being right after the big bang and did not change throughout the process. This means that the cause for the beginning of the universe also had to have been the explanation of the finely tuned universe. Thus, it would be evidence of intelligent design as the possible explanation.

Moreover, the Principle of Universality states, that the same general scientific principles are probably true throughout the cosmos.This principle can bring us to the conclusion that by extracting from the unknown amount of intelligence in the natural sciences to the most likely degree of intelligence that is applicable throughout the cosmos.

Since the universe is semi-infinite in the future, there's potentially an infinite number of mathematical relations out there to be discovered. Each of these relations by definition represents a small amount of cosmic intelligence waiting to be understood, so it follows that the universe must necessarily possess an infinite degree of mathematical intelligence.
This not only suggest that the cause is intelligent but the degree of intelligence and knowledge would be infinite. Thus, the attribute of this cause must be omniscience.

ALL-POWERFUL

D. Our universe was created out of nothing perfectly fine-tuned to support life from the very beginning. This is the definition of a miracle which is something that defies the laws of physics. Thus, the attribute of this cause must be omni-potent.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

E. Since this creator had to have been eternal and intelligent for creating an inconceivably complex universe, we have reason to believe that its the same source that created life and complex life forms as well.

Life could not and did not exist around the time the singularity expanded and "life comes from life" , according to existing data. In addition, all our empirical oberservations showing only intelligent life creating other intelligent life. There is empirical evidence showing simple life forms becoming or creating complex life forms. Thus, there had to have been an eternal life force that exist outside of space and time who freely chose to infuse life, and intelligently design life forms from simple to complex on Earth.

OCCAM'S RAZOR

3. The God Hypothesis does not violate Occam's Razor, which is the simplest explanation should always be favored over the complex ones or needlessly multiplying causes is unnecessary. The reason why the God Hypothesis is the simplest explanation is because its a rational hypothesis that is also supported and verified by many points of data as I demonstrated earlier. It postulates only one cause, its falsifiable and you can test it along with make predictions, which leads me to my last segment here.

FALSIFICATION

4. We can make testable predictions for this hypothesis. If the God hypothesis is true, it would show that the universe had an absolute beginning in the past and that it came from nothing. You can falsify this by showing that the universe had no cause at all or the cause of the effect could still be natural by explaining how you can avoid the conclusion from one of the theorems that I provided regarding the beginning of the universe. This would completely negate and falsify the God hypothesis entirely. CON can either do this or do it the hard way and falsify each of my claims I made about the hypothesis.
wiploc

Con


Thanks, kenballer, for fielding this interesting argument.



There are so many targets that I don't know where to aim. Most of Pro's sentences contain either incoherency or obvious error. Because it takes longer to explain an error than to make one, I won't be able to point out all the problems with Pro's argument.



Therefore, I must make a general demurer to cover any arguments that I couldn't get to. Readers will understand.




- Pro says that infinities don't exist in reality because it is generally impossible to draw a perfect circle. This is a non sequitur; there is no reason to believe it.



Further, this is one of the questions I like to put to physics professors when I meet one. Not one of the ones I discussed it with has endorsed the idea that there are no real infinities.



- Pro says the first cause must be limitless by nature. He gives no reason to believe this.



Moreover, the claim that the first cause is limitless refutes the claim that there are no real infinities.



Also, Pro claims that god is eternal, which means infinitely old. Again, he contradicts himself.



Pro claims the past can't be infinite because, "we would never have gotten here." But the opposite argument is equally strong: Nothing comes from nothing, so if there had ever been nothing, then something would never have gotten started. I don't say that's a good argument, but it is as strong as Pro's argument. And Pro has the burden of proof.



(Pro has the burden of proof because


1. He initiated this debate,


2. He is Pro, and


3. He is the one making all these nonsensical assertions.)



Pro says the first cause must be transcendent, an entity, and apart from the universe. He gives us no justification for any of these claims. Moreover, they conflict with the claims of William Lane Craig, theism's big gun.



- Pro says there are theorems on his side. Obviously, there are theorems opposing him too. He doesn't even say whether the authors of these theorems believe they represent reality. He cites Hawkings (sic), who obviously doesn't agree with him. Steven Hawking, whom Pro intended to reference, does not believe that time began.



- Pro talks about multiverses, meaning our "universe" may not be the only one. If there are other universes, then maybe they caused this universe. I’m not stipulating that this universe had a cause, or that there are other universes, but, having introduced multiverses into the discussion, Pro is estopped from claiming that they—rather than gods—didn't cause our universe. Numbers and gods are no longer the only causal candidates.



Further, we know nothing about these other universes. Pro doesn't get to assume that infinities aren't real in those universes. So, his argument against infinity—even if it were true in our own universe, which I do not stipulate—is sabotaged by his suggestion that there may be other universes in which his assumption may not apply.



Pro claims that multiverses would need an absolute beginning, but he made that up. He doesn't get to invent the rules of other universes and bind me to them.



- Pro talks about the law of cause and effect. It's not a law, so much as a definition. Every effect has a cause because that's what we mean by the word "effect."



Pro inexplicably assumes that the beginning of this universe is an effect, and that it therefore has a cause. That's a circular argument. By calling it an effect, he infers a cause. That's silly.



I can do the same with his god: Pro's god is an effect, therefore it has a cause, therefore it is not the first cause. Again, that's not a good argument, but it is exactly as strong as Pro's argument.



- Pro says that the first cause must "have been a changeless, timeless, and immaterial being," but he doesn't even attempt a justification for these outrageous claims.



If something were timeless, it would not exist at any time, so it would not exist.



If something were changeless, it would not do anything, so it would not create universes. Nor would it be the god of the bible, which god is sometimes angry and sometimes not, and sometimes does things it later repents of.



Pro's god transcends space, which doesn't make any sense. Does that mean it doesn't exist anywhere?



Pro's god is immaterial and omnipresent, but the god of the bible walked in the garden and rode pillars of flame to get down from Heaven.



Pro's god is a disembodied mind. As far as we know, minds require bodies. Kill the body, kill the mind.



Pro fields the design argument. But you can't conclude that something is deliberate because it is unusual or unlikely. Many unlikely things happen without being planned. It happens all the time. And the design argument shoots itself in the foot anyway, since if god were all-powerful, he wouldn't need a designed universe for us to live in. With his support—which is what the design argument is attempting to establish—we could live anywhere.



Pro cites the "principle of universality." Principles, like theorems, don't have to be true. But, if we pretend this one is true, then most of Pro's argument is refuted. All the minds we know have physical brains, so, according to the principle of universality, god's mind would have a physical brain too, if there were a god, if it had a mind. Time passes for us, so it must pass for gods too. Every second we see has time before it, so every second that ever was must have time before it—in which case the universe must not have a beginning.



Pro says the universe is "semi-infinite." That's gibberish. There's no such thing. He's trying to equivocate, to have infinities and not have them too.



Pro says his god must be omniscient because the universe is semi-infinite. That doesn't follow. There's no reason to believe it.



Pro says his god did a miracle, so it must be omnipotent. If you can do one miracle then you can do any miracle? Who made that rule? That's absurd. And anyway, people around here can't do miracles, so according to the principle of universality, gods can't either.



Pro says his god must have created life because he is eternal and intelligent. That doesn't follow. First, eternality is impossible according to Pro, because infinities aren't real. Second, if eternities are possible, then the universe may not have a beginning. Third, life may have happened without an intelligent and eternal designer. Forth, even if one such did create life, we don't know how many intelligent and eternal people exist in Pro's multiverses, so we have no reason to assume that Pro's god is the responsible party.



Pro says that life didn't exist at the beginning, and that only intelligent life creates intelligent life. This shoots down his whole argument. If life didn't exist, then either god didn't exist or god isn't alive. Either way, Pro's theory that his living god created life is kaput.



Pro claims the support of Occam's Razor, but his argument is chock full of wild extravagances and special pleadings. Brainless minds, uncaused causes, multiverses, eternities there but no eternities here, miracles, etc. Occam would have rejected each of those individually, and would have totally trashed any theory that required all of them.



Conclusion:



Pro's case does not survive inspection. He has not proven anything. Pro has the burden of proof, but has not begun to shoulder that burden.



Vote Con.




Bonus Points:



1. The god hypothesis leads to the kind of obvious nonsense presented in Pro's case. It is not explanatory. It is not scientific. It appeals only to highly motivated believers.



2. Statistically, the more science you know, the less religious you are. That is, science rejects the god hypothesis. The god hypothesis is not the best explanation for anything.



3. People with good arguments tend not to make bad arguments. If theists had any good arguments, we wouldn't be seeing arguments like Pro's.


Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Pro

1. The EXISTENCE OF INFINITY

Well first off, I never said that there are no real infinities. On a qualitative level, I accept as well as CON the existence of an infinity, but I explained logically why it could not be the universe itself. Therefore, it had to have been another entity I call the God Hypothesis. Second, I said that there cannot be an infinite set of causes IN reality on a quantitative level. CON probably can demonstrate on paper an infinite set in the realm of mathematics but CON cannot use an example in reality to prove quantitatively that an infinity exist in the form of the universe itself.

George Ellis , who is considered one of the World's leading theorists in cosmology, was asked if there can be an infinite set of existing universes. He actually reiterates what I have been arguing and saying before:

"When speaking of multiverses or ensembles of universes as possible or realised, the issue of infinity inevitably crops up. Researchers often envision an infinite set of universes, in which all possibilities are realised. Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that the answer may very well be , "No"�. The common perception that this is possible arises from not appreciating the precisions in meaning and the restrictions in application associated with this profoundly difficult concept. Because we can assign a symbol to represent infinity and can manipulate that symbol according to specified rules, we assume corresponding infinite� entities can exist in practice. This is questionable. Furthermore, as we have already indicated, such infinities lead to severe calculational problems in the mathematical modelling of ensembles of universes or universe domains, blocking any meaningful application of probability calculus.

There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set " countable or uncountable " of possible or conceivable universes. However, as David Hilbert (1964) points out, the presumed existence of the actually infinite directly or indirectly leads to well-recognised unresolvable contradictions in set theory (e. g., the Russell paradox, involving the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, which by definition must both be a member of itself and not a member of itself!), and thus in the definitions and deductive foundations of mathematics itself (Hilbert, pp.141-142)."

http://arxiv.org...

2. "Pro says there are theorems on his side. Obviously, there are theorems opposing him too. He doesn't even say whether the authors of these theorems believe they represent reality. He cites Hawkings (sic), who obviously doesn't agree with him. Steven Hawking, whom Pro intended to reference, does not believe that time began."

First off, CON needs to explain what those theorems are that oppose me. Second, his claim he made about Stephen Hawkings is false. Here is a quote from him:

"....As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang. Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. ... There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang." (Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes," [1988], Bantam: London, 1991, reprint, p.50) ]

The MULTI-VERSE

3. "Pro is estopped from claiming that they—rather than gods—didn't cause our universe. Numbers and gods are no longer the only causal candidates."

CON misread the Alan Guth theorem and my argument. I said even IF we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" for the sake argument, the BGV theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. Therefore, Since there has to be an absolute beginning in some way shape or form, CON can deposit as many universes or versions of the multi-verse as he wants. It still would not weed out the God hypothesis as the actual explanation for these universes AND for the fine-tuning of the universes.

4. "Further, we know nothing about these other universes. Pro doesn't get to assume that infinities aren't real in those universes. So, his argument against infinity—even if it were true in our own universe, which I do not stipulate—is sabotaged by his suggestion that there may be other universes in which his assumption may not apply."

If CON is arguing that if there were other universes, its possible they could not have been operating under the same principles of nature as this one, then this multi-verse could not be considered a natural cause. He would end up just making another metaphysical claim only his would be done to an infinite degree. By invoking an infinite number of universes with different laws of nature just to explain our universe, it would not only be unfalsifiable but violate Occam's razor to the highest degree.

THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

5."Pro talks about the law of cause and effect. It's not a law, so much as a definition. Every effect has a cause because that's what we mean by the word "effect"."

This is a false belief on CON's part because science and scientist do indeed deem this to be an actual law as well as an metaphysical principle. Since my approach is more scientific than philosophical, I don't see how this is silly. He needs to explain how its silly not just assert it to claim there's a problem with my argument.

6. "Pro says that the first cause must "have been a changeless, timeless, and immaterial being," but he doesn't even attempt a justification for these outrageous claims."

Direct empirical evidence is not required in science. Gravity as well as many examples, do not provide direct evidence of its existence. For instance, Even though gravity is hard to define, we can't determine its mechanism or have no direct evidence of it, we still know it exists because this force called gravity manifests itself in reality (planetary orbits, masses falling to ground, etc) there by providing indirect evidence of its existence. As I explained before, If the cause is there, then the effect would have to be there once the initial conditions of the effect are given.

The same rules of science can be applied with the God hypothesis. We know that this explanation exist because we see the effects of it, which is the universe coming into existence out of nothing.

7. "... god's mind would have a physical brain too, if there were a god, if it had a mind. Time passes for us, so it must pass for gods too. Every second we see has time before it, so every second that ever was must have time before it—in which case the universe must not have a beginning."

Well first off, this whole debate is me providing evidence of a disembodied mind. Second, If CON is arguing that the causal principle only operates "temporally" between "temporally" related entities, then he is assuming a big burden of proof. What he is saying is just an assertion NOT a fact. The onus is on him. Otherwise, CON will be engaging in Special Pleading. In fact, There's no reason why we can't have a cause exist simultaneously with the effect.

LIFE COMES FROM LIFE

8. "Third, life may have happened without an intelligent and eternal designer."

CON must Prove this then

OCCAM'S RAZOR

9." Brainless minds, uncaused causes, multiverses, eternities there but no eternities here, miracles, etc. Occam would have rejected each of those individually, and would have totally trashed any theory that required all of them."

I find this ironic because Occam just happens to be a Christian. Nevertheless, I never argued that the God Hypothesis was simple on its own merits but the "Simplest" explanation compared to other ones.
wiploc

Con

I wish Pro's case were organized enough that I knew what he thought he was arguing. I see no structure. Random claims whiz by, many of which are so far-fetched as to seem whimsical.

Don't let Pro use unclarity as an offensive weapon. He has the burden of proof.

I'll start at the beginning of his post, and point out errors. An argument with this many errors would have to be utterly unpersuasive even if we did understand it.

- Pro recants his claim that there can't be infinities. Apparently he thinks he gets to use infinities but I don't. That's textbook special pleading, a fallacy.

- Pro says I can't prove that infinities exist in the universe, but that is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. If it's important to him that infinities not exist, then he has to prove that they don't. And if they don't, then he doesn't get to use them himself.

- Pro claims George Ellis as an expert supporting his claim that infinities don't exist. But what does he quote Ellis as actually saying? "Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that the answer may very well be , 'No' ." [Sic, and emphasis added.]

In other words, George Ellis said infinities may not exist. He can't tell. Ellis does not support Pro's claim that infinities do not exist.

Voters, I submit that source points could be awarded to me: Pro offered a sourced quote that doesn't say what he claims it does. Source points are for reliable sources; if a source doesn't say what it's proponent claims it says, it's reliability is negative.

Certainly Pro should not be granted source points.

Pro quotes Ellis considering whether "infinite entities can exist in practice." His verdict? The existence of Infinite entities is "questionable." Questionable, not nonexistent.

This refutes Pro's claim that god is an infinite entity. Pro provided this expert, but the expert says his claim is questionable.

Pro also misrepresented his source:

1. Pro claims that infinities don't exist.

2. Pro claims that Ellis supports him, "He actually reiterates what I have been arguing and saying before."
3. But the actual quote does not support Pro in the slightest.

Consider, voters whether this is worth voting sources to Con.

So, Pro's claim that don't exist is unsupported and bereft of credibility.

- Pro admits that "There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set ' countable or uncountable '" (sic) of possible or conceivable universes." That's a turn, a slam dunk for me. Infinite universes are "possible," according to Pro. Pro's case is dead.

- Pro cites David Hilbert (of Hilbert's Hotel fame). Hilbert didn't like infinities the way Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics, the way Pythagoras didn't like irrational numbers, the way Schrödinger didn't like uncollapsed probability waves. Hilbert illustrated ways in which infinities seem strange to people who are used to finite numbers, but you can't prove that the French language doesn't exist by showing that it seems strange to English speakers.

Hilbert no more proved that infinities don't exist than Einstein proved god doesn't play dice. [4]

You can't prove that imaginary numbers (numbers involving the square root of minus one) don't exist by throwing up your hands and saying, "It's too weird! I don't believe it!" They are weird, but they do in fact describe the physical world. Computer technology is based on irrational numbers. If irrational numbers weren't true, microprocessors wouldn't work.

Do infinities describe the actual universe? I don't know. George Ellis doesn't know. Physics professors Tom Manny and Larry Weaver don't know. [1]

I don't think Pro knows either. But he has undertaken to prove that infinities don't exist, and he has failed.

- Pro claimed some people have theorems, and asks readers believe, in effect, that theorems make things true. I offered Pro opportunity to clarify: Do his experts believe their theorems describe reality? Are they true? Pro would need conclusive quotations in support, because we know by now not to trust his representations of what his sources believe. But, in any case, Pro declined to answer. Instead he tried to shift the burden of proof to me, asking me to provide conflicting theorems.

In effect, he has dropped this line of argument.

- Pro says I misrepresented Steven Hawking, whose name he persists in misspelling even after being corrected. Pro quotes Hawking, in A Brief History of Time as saying that we don't know what happened before the big bang so we should say that nothing happened. That's like saying that if footprints appear out of the surf, that we should assume that somebody materialized there at the shore. (I'm not making fun of Hawking, whose point is that there's no point in speculating on what happened before the big bang: We just don't know.)

Asimov used similar language. We don't know what happened before, so we can call that the beginning.

In fact, every professional I've read on the subject has used similar language. They don't know. There's no point in talking about it. Let's call that the start.

But Pro tries to portray this as a claim that the universe actually started at the big bang. This is improper.

In fact, A Brief History of Time sets out Hawking's belief: Time is finite but unbounded. [2] That is, time doesn't go back infinitely, but neither does it have a beginning. (Hawking believes in "imaginary time" [time measured in terms of the square root of minus one], which is every bit as confusing to me as infinities, but Hawking---Pro's chosen authority---believes it is real.) "Finite but unbounded" makes no sense to me. But, once we get into quantum mechanics, as J. B. S. Haldane, said "in Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286: The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." [3]

The point is that Pro misrepresented not only Hawking's belief, but the Hawking quotation that Pro provided.

Voters, again, consider this misrepresentation if you vote points for sources.

But a question remains: Are physicists just saying we should, as a practical matter, treat the big bang as the beginning? Or do they actually believe it is the beginning.

After all, when experts write for laymen, they say the uncertainty principle consists of not knowing both velocity and location. But they really believe that, beyond certain limits, if the location is known, the velocity is not true.

Could it be that physicists do a similar thing, just calling the big bang the beginning for laymen, but believing among themselves that it really is the beginning? I asked Professor of Physics Larry Weaver, PhD, what the consensus is among physicists.

His answer: "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

It appears that Physics does not support Pro's claim. Pro based his case on a scientific consensus that does not in fact exist.

- Conclusion:

- Please forgive me for not having space to get to the rest of Pro's claims. It takes longer to clear up misrepresentations than to make them.

- What can we say for sure about Pro's case? Most of his claims are false. No identifiable case can be constructed from his true claims.

- Pro has the burden of proof. He failed to carry it.

- Please extend all of my arguments.

- Please generalize: Each of Pro's claims that I had space to consider proved false.

- Please vote Con for persuasiveness.

Please vote Con for sources.

Footnotes:

1. Personal conversation with Physicists Tom Manny and Larry Weaver. I talked to others, too, but I don't remember their names. Not one of them ever came down on Pro's side of this argument.

2. A Brief History of Time, Steven Hawking.

3. http://en.wikiquote.org...

4. http://en.wikiquote.org...

Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Pro

1. "Pro says I can't prove that infinities exist in the universe, but that is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. If it's important to him that infinities not exist, then he has to prove that they don't. And if they don't, then he doesn't get to use them himself."

I want the AUDIENCE to understand and be reminded by the title of the debate since CON does not seem to quite get the memo here. The whole point of my presentation was to provide the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origins of existence NOT prove the existence of GOD on philosophical grounds.Therefore, I was not using ,on its own merits, the first cause argument as an actual argument for God's existence. I was using it to establish a rational hypothesis that can be tested and translated within the physical world, which is what the scientific method would require, that would eventually show that the God hypothesis is the best explanation for origins of the universe.

Therefore, that being said, it is up to CON to falsify my God hypothesis if he wants to win this kind of debate. I told him how he can falsify the God hypothesis already and he has yet to do this. If the God hypothesis is true, it would show that the universe had an absolute beginning in the past and that it came from nothing. CON can falsify this by showing that the universe had no cause at all, the cause for the effect could still be natural or the universe is eternal. This would completely negate and falsify the God hypothesis entirely.

Secondly, again, I NEVER said that infinities don't exist. I said that an infinite quantity of something COULD NOT exist in REALITY because Every attempt to translate an infinite number of causes into the real world have produced contradictory results. I did not say they DO NOT exist as if its an brute fact that has been proven to be true for the physical and metaphysical world. There is a difference. Abstract objects like finite numbers and the logical absolutes can be translated into reality even though they are metaphysical by nature.

Now as far as the existence of infinities on a qualitative level, of course they would have to be something that exist forever in some fashion. Either the universe is eternal and infinite or the God Hypothesis. I have already demonstrated that the universe could not be infinite or eternal, but apparently I have not been as clear.

2. "Pro admits that "There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set ' countable or uncountable '" (sic) of possible or conceivable universes." That's a turn, a slam dunk for me. Infinite universes are "possible," according to Pro. Pro's case is dead."

CON must prove this that because something can exist in the mind and/or the realm of mathematics automatically means I am also saying that an actual infinite set of causes or quantities exist in reality. Potentiality is not the same thing as actuality. This is absurd and I never said this. According to CON, leprechauns exist and pink unicorns exist because we can concieve and draw them on paper.

3."Pro says I misrepresented Steven Hawking, whose name he persists in misspelling even after being corrected. Pro quotes Hawking, in A Brief History of Time as saying that we don't know what happened before the big bang so we should say that nothing happened. That's like saying that if footprints appear out of the surf, that we should assume that somebody materialized there at the shore. (I'm not making fun of Hawking, whose point is that there's no point in speculating on what happened before the big bang: We just don't know.)"

Well I never said I knew what happened before the big bang either. The point of my argument was to show that the universe had a beginning and that there was a cause for this beginning based on what we do know.

4. "But Pro tries to portray this as a claim that the universe actually started at the big bang. This is improper."

Well first off, Hawkings was never my chosen authority figure to cite but was CON'S authority. The theorem he created was what I cited and focused on. In Hawkings model of the universe, it has a beginning of the universe. However, the main theorem that was important in establishing the beginning of the universe was the BGV theorem that CON never really addressed.

CON objected to the begininning of the universe because he is claiming that we don't have a complete theory of quantum gravity regarding the Planck time era. However, I told him that the Borde, Guth,Vilenken theorem is independent of that when it comes to the early universe. Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse", their theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well.

CON then claims that there is not a consesus acceptance of this theorem or that there's an absolute beginning to the universe. The BGV theorem is indeed accepted amongst the world's leading physicists and it does describe reality according to them. Here is a quote by one of the creators of this theorem about their conclusion:

"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." - Alexander Vilenkin.

Its very simple: If u have an expansion greater than 0, the universe began. Period.

In Conclusion, The only thing CON can do is create a straw man of my argument by claiming that I said infinities don't exist

Second, CON failed to stay true to the debate subject and kept steering away from it during the debate.

Third, CON's sources were based on unverifiable personal meetings or anecdote's and....... "wikipedia". Enough said there.

Fourth, CON never attempted to falsify the God hypothesis because He felt that he was not obligated to do so, which means the GOD hypothesis is the best explanation since it can't be shown false by default from CON.

For all this, I urge a vote for PRO
wiploc

Con

Round one was challenge and acceptance.

=

In round 2, Pro offered a disorganized series of statements that were mostly either demonstrably wrong or wild leaps of imagination that we had no reason to believe.

While I could not identify the overall structure of Pro's argument (Which is not my problem; Pro had the burden of proof, so Pro had the obligation to make himself clear) I did show that most of his claims were wrong, absurd, or unsupported. Pro's argument consists of non sequiturs (infinities do not exist because it's hard to draw a perfect circle), unsupported assertions (the first cause must be limitless by nature), absurd foolishness (we can reasonably conclude that the universe is caused by assuming that it is an effect), contradiction (Pro used the principle of universality to contradict most of the rest of his argument; and he also said life comes only from life, but also said there was no life in the beginning), gibberish ("semi-infinite"), silly extrapolation (if god can do one miracle then he must be omnipotent), and logical inversions (He claims Occam's razor supports belief in brainless minds, uncaused causes, multiverses, eternities there but no eternities here, miracles, etcetera).

Since Pro's argument consists of fancies, fallacies, contradictions and other unwarranted leaps, it cannot be called scientific. Since it is not scientific at all, it cannot be the best scientific explanation of anything.

But that was Pro's burden. He undertook to show the best scientific explanation of the origin of the universe.

He failed dramatically.

=

In round 3, Pro demonstrated such a penchant for misrepresentation that I used the round to make his unreliability clear.

He quoted one person, Ellis, saying, "infinities may not exist," and claimed that as proof that infinities do not exist.

Pro conceded that ""There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set ' countable or uncountable '" (sic) of possible or conceivable universes." This concession destroys Pro's case, which is based on the nonexistence of infinities.

Pro misrepresented Steven Hawking, who does not believe what Pro claimed he believed, who in fact believes that the universe did not begin.[1]

=

In round 4, Pro finally says that B, G, and V actually believe their theorem. He offers a quotation (admirably arrogant) in support. However, if BGV are correct, then there are no real infinities, so Pro's infinite god—according to Pro's own expert—must be unreal, nonexistent.

Pro clarifies his claim about infinities. He "NEVER said that infinities don't exist." Rather, he said infinite quantities don't exist "in REALITY." They exist, then, just not really. If they aren't real, they must be fantasy. They must be unreal, like Pro's infinite god. I guess Pro straightened me out.


Pro has resorted to outright lies:

- Pro said, "According to CON, leprechauns exist and pink unicorns exist because we can concieve and draw them on paper." I never said anything like that.

- Pro said, "Hawkings (sic) was never my chosen authority figure to cite but was CON'S authority." But Pro introduced Hawking in his second post: Pro wrote, "The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity , which was co-authored by Hawkings and Penrose clearly states that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning." Pro introduced Hawking, and he introduced him as an authority. I didn't introduce Hawking; I just pointed out that Pro misrepresented Him.

- Pro said, "CON objected to the begininning of the universe because he is claiming that we don't have a complete theory of quantum gravity regarding the Planck time era." I didn't say that. I don't even know what it means.

- Pro wrote, "In Conclusion, The only thing CON can do is create a straw man of my argument by claiming that I said infinities don't exist." In fact, I destroyed his argument, pointing out over twenty logical flaws. He dropped most of these, didn't even try to defend them. He effectively conceded that his argument is rife with error.

- Pro wrote, "CON failed to stay true to the debate subject and kept steering away from it during the debate." That's not true. The resolution is, "The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence." I pointed out that Pro's theory is shot thru with incoherencies; mistakes; misrepresentations; self-contradictions; non sequiturs; and, now, lies. That's propaganda, not science. Pro's argument is not a scientific theory at all, so it cannot be the best scientific theory.

- Pro challenged my sources. He repeatedly misrepresented what his sources said, so this challenge is amazing; he ought to be directing your attention to anywhere else. I actually went out and talked to experts in the field. Anybody else can verify by doing the same. If you want, you can even talk to the same people I did. I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you what they told me. (Note that Pro calls my quotations "unverifiable" because he didn't try to check them out, but he claims his theory is "falsifiable" because, he says, I can determine how and whether the universe began.)

Compare that to Pro's sources, which he twice misrepresented.

Pro criticizes me for using wiki to find out who said the universe is queerer than we can imagine, and to check Einstein's "god does not play dice" quotation. He's grasping at straws.

- Pro concluded: "Fourth, CON never attempted to falsify the God hypothesis because He felt that he was not obligated to do so, which means the GOD hypothesis is the best explanation since it can't be shown false by default from CON." This is a gross misrepresentation. I showed over twenty grievous errors in Pro's theory, including incoherence and non sequiturs. I showed that his case is based on misrepresentations, untruths. I showed that Pro repeatedly contradicted himself. I proved Pro's "hypothesis" to be worthless.


Vote Con for spelling and grammar, since Pro's was inferior.


Vote Con for sources, because source points are to be given for reliability. My sources actually say what I claim they do. Pro misrepresented his repeatedly.


Vote Con for behavior, because Pro continued his pattern of misrepresentation even after he was caught and exposed. Stubborn dishonesty is well worth a conduct point.


Vote Con for persuasion, because I showed Pro's case to be a concatenation of errors, most of which he didn't even try to defend.



Footnote:

1. A Brief History of Time.


Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Arguments where close, but the majority of my vote lies on the BOP.

As Pro is PRO on a debate such as this, and he is an instigator, it is customary he has the BOP in this debate, unless otherwise specified in round 1. Now, many of pros assertions where either odd and unsupported then refuted, or did not hold up fully to meet the BOP. Now, would I suspect he has 100% of the BOP? No, that's not sensible. But many of his arguments where unsupported, poor, and refuted.

I think the arguments offered by pro (like the philosophies) where either not convincing enough to meet the BOP or refuted by CON.

---> Sources

It was rather tied at first, as the first sources of data where equally accurate, but the last source presented was the most accurate presented (well some), but pro had more accurate sources and more sources in the end, justifying the 2 points.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Fool, you voted for Pro. Maybe you meant to, I don't know. I can't tell what the meaning of your comments are, but, judging by your tone of voice when you were talking about Pro, I expected your vote to be for me.

So, just in case you were trying to vote for me, I'll mention that you didn't, and that you can change your vote.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Empirical science is called Natural Science For a reason, which comes from Natural Philosophy, which is the philososphy of Natural phenomena. Its not SuperNatural science. Nor Theology. Honestly, Like, what does Pro expect... Really..
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I see you are correct. Okay, I'm in.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Wiploc, 72 hours is the max.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I like all the changes. I still prefer a week of reaction time per post, rather than 72 hours. Will that work for you?
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I like three round debates. Longer debates tend to be boring when I read other people's, and a tedious rehashing when I'm in the debate. Since I don't want to read longer debates, I don't want to ask other people to read longer debates.

But four rounds is cool when, as in this case, the first round is just for acceptance.

It turns out I need more than 72 hours per round. Is it possible to set it longer. At 72 hours, I wind up writing posts at two am. Exhausting. Can we make it a week?

The rest of your term are good. I prefer a two week voting period (people quit voting by then anyway) but that's no deal breaker.

Thanks for this invitation.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
kenballerwiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Biggest problem here is that Pro did not explain, in scientific terms, what the God hypothesis IS. Nor did he explain how it could be falsified -- he only explained how one argument could be falsified. In addition, he was unable to defend his arguments against Pro's rebuttals, his behavior and S/G were substellar, and I don't know what gave him the idea that using wikipedia is an automatic loss on sources.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
kenballerwiplocTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: i wish pro wold have done better.....lol but his sources were better
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
kenballerwiplocTied
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: comments
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
kenballerwiplocTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: All pro's arguments are unstable, we forget that if God is to be based from sense information. God by definition would be organized matter. And that is not what anybody means by God.