The Instigator
sengejuri
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
illegalcombat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/27/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 95692
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

sengejuri

Pro

Full Premise: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.

"Sound" is defined as "a logically valid argument that withstands all scrutiny."

Simply put - if Con can present evidence or argument that successfully dismantles the Kalam, Con wins.

Format:
Round 1 - Acceptance and definitions
Round 2 - Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3 - Rebuttals/Counter Arguments
Round 4 - Final rebuttals (no new arguments)

Con may begin their rebuttal immediately of the following argument by showing that either the argument's form is invalid, the premises are incorrect, the conclusion is incorrect, or the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

== Kalam Cosmological Argument ==

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused.

Universe = All space, time, and matter in the cosmos.

Con - let me know if you'd like any changes.
illegalcombat

Con

Note: As stated in the comments section, It was accepted by Sengejuri that I can "rebutt/counter argument in round 2".

I look forward to Pros opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
sengejuri

Pro

My opening argument is very basic.

Assumption 1: Something cannot create itself.

Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something. When discussing the Kalam argument, opponents frequently attack the concept of "nothing" by bringing up things like CP symmetry violation and quantum vacuum fluctuation. So let's be clear on what we mean by "nothing." It means quite literally "no-thing." No matter, no energy, no space, no natural laws, no properties. No thing. In light of this, things like quantum vacuums are not nothing, as they still possess energy, space, and other properties.

Assumption 3: The universe had a finite beginning. This is important because, if true, it means that no space, time, or matter existed prior to the birth of the universe (re: Assumption 2).

With these assumptions, the argument proceeds as follows:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused

I welcome Con's rebuttals.
illegalcombat

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument.

In my view Pro has not given adequate justification for their premises, too much assumptions, not enough warrant for the actual premises.

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

(Lets talk metaphysics)

Consider Pros premises "What ever begins to exist has a cause".

Before I even begin analyzing the justification for that premise I need to bring to attention what that premise is making a claim on. The premises is not some absolute rule concerning atoms, or even our entire universe, rather it's a claim on the metaphysical, that is to say whether there exists God, Gods, angels, demons, a multi verse, we are all living in a computer simulation by entities which themselves live in a simulation etc etc this premise imposes on it's self as an absolute rule for all time, ever where, in and beyond our universe.............NO EXCEPTIONS.

And we are going to need more than just some assumptions to justify such an all inclusive, absolute claim.

Wes Morriston counters against justifying such a claim of what happens in our universe and extrapolating that to an absolute metaphysical rule..."I quite agree that a tiger couldnt spring into existence uncaused. But we have been given no reason to think that what"s true of a tiger applies to physical reality as a whole. Remember that we"re talking about the origin of the whole natural order here. A tiger comes into existence within the natural order, and within that order it is indeed impossible for things like tigers just to pop into existence. But as far as I can see, there is no comparable context for the origin of physical reality as a whole, and no analogous reason for thinking that it could not have begun to exist uncaused [1]

(Pros Assumption 1: Something cannot create itself)

Well why not ? is there a reason ? or are you just assuming that ?

In any case even accepting this assumption doesn't justify P1, since if something began to exist without a cause, it didn't create it's self and thus doesn't violation this rule.

(Pros Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something)

It is imagined that if you had a state of nothing and only nothing, then that state would remain the same forever and there would never be any change to the state of affairs.

Wes Morriston points out..." What we are talking about here, after all, is nothing at all - "no matter, no energy,
no space, no time, no deity." And nothing at all has no power at all, not even the power to prevent things from existing. One wants to ask Craig, "If there were nothing at all, what would make it true that nothing could come into existence?" [2]

Pros assumption here even if granted only justifies that nothing can't create something, not necessarily that nothing acts as a restriction that something else could begin to exist without a cause.

What are the rules for determining metaphysically possibilities/impossibles ?

Consider just some of the claims metaphysical claims that Pros arguments needs in order to work....

1) What ever begins to exist has a cause/that is to say metaphysically impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause

2) The cause of the universe is timeless & immaterial/that is to say it is metaphysically possible for a timeless, immaterial cause to give rise to a temporal and material effect.

Now consider the following metaphysical propositions.......

1) Not all things that begin to exist, necessarily, have to have a cause.

2) All material effects have a material cause.

3) In a state absent of time, something can be it's own cause.

4) A cause must exist in temporal relations to it's effect/that is to say no such thing as a timeless cause.

Accepting any of these metaphysical claims would directly contradict Pros argument.

What should we use to determine whether such metaphysical claims are true or false ? are there any rules one must adhere to ? or are we all just making them up as go along to suit our agendas ? Hint.........I think it's the agenda thing.

I invite Pro to share with us such a methodology that he thinks we should use, absent of such a methodology we are just accepting or rejecting such metaphysical claims at our own pleasure, and is that really a solid basis for accepting the Kalam argument & it's questionable metaphysics it is based on ? I think not.

The universe did not begin to exist

What does it mean to say that something "began" to exist ?

Consider Pro, yourself and DDO. These things exist, but we would also agree that these things "began" to exist, but why is that ? I argue that's because we recognise that although these things exist, there was also a point in the past where such things did not exist.

This can be formulated as follows.......X began to exist, if and only if X exists, and there was a time in the past where X did not exist.

There is no point in time where the universe did not exist, this is still the case if the universe is billions of years old/has a finite past, as there is no time before the existence of the universe and thus no "prior" state in which the universe did not exist.

1) X began to exist, if and only if X exists, and there was a time in the past where X did not exist.
2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not exist
C) Therefore the universe did not "began" to exist.

This directly contradicts Pros second premise that states the universe began to exist.

Kalam is incompatible with B theory of time

" The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality." (3) Compare and contrast this to A theory that states only the "now" exists, where the past and future relative to the "now" do not really exist.

William Lane Craig a main advocate of Kalam states..." From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived" (4)

Brian Green remarks..."Once we know that your now can be what I consider the past or your now can be what I consider the future and your now is just as equally valid as mine, then we learn that the past must be real, the future must be real." & "Past, present, future all equally real. Any given individual can certainty speak of their past or their present or their future, the key realization of (Einstein's) relativity is that they are really only speaking for themselves. [5]

Max Tegmark remarks..."there is nothing in the laws of physics that selects one now over any other now." [5]

I argue that B theory is more likely true than A theory and thus the Kalam Cosmological Argument as it rests upon A theory of time should rejected.

I look forward to Pros response.

Sources

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[2] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184

[5] https://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 2
sengejuri

Pro

Thank you Con.



Con has correctly identified that my opening round is laconic. This is by design. I intend to merely present the argument and leave my opponent the responsibility of dismantling it by either attacking the argument"s assumptions, form, premises, or conclusion. The true weight of my case, therefore, rests in the following defense of Con"s rebuttals:



Whatever begins to exist has a cause:



Here, Con protests to the absolute nature of this premise, claiming there is no reason to extrapolate this as an absolute metaphysical rule, per say. What"s true of the tiger may not be true of physical reality as a whole, Con claims. In response, I merely say: prove it. If science is the practice of drawing conclusions based on observations of the natural world, then Con is proposing a very un-scientific idea. Without fail, we observe everything that begins to exist has a cause. Indeed, this is the very basis of science, for if things could appear uncaused then the whole purpose of scientific inquiry (seeking to identify cause and effect) would be destroyed! If my opponent can present one single example of an uncaused creation, I will immediately forfeit this debate.



Furthermore, we must ask the question: if it is possible for physical reality to exist without a cause, then why DON"T tigers just pop into existence out of nothing? Why would uncaused origins only apply to physical reality as a whole, but not to items within that reality? What mechanism makes this "uncaused force" so discriminatory, and would not that mechanism itself be a cause? This is a very strange attack issued by Con, there is no basis to accept it whatsoever. Everything we know about the natural world confirms: whatever began to exist has a cause for its existence.



Assumption 1: Something cannot create itself:



Con asks, "well why not?" The answer is simple. In order for something to create itself, it must have already existed in order to take part in the creating. But this is circular logic "" because something could not have created itself if it already existed in the first place. That is merely reproduction, not creation. The purpose of this assumption is to nullify arguments that the universe, as defined, could have caused itself to come into existence.



Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something



Here, Con seems to agree that nothing can"t create something, but merely protests that *truly* nothing would also not be restrictive of something coming to exist. But there is a central contradiction in this line of thinking "" if nothing cannot create something, and if nothing is all there is, then nothing will be created. It matters not whether nothing can act as a restriction, because nothing will begin if nothing is all there is. The only way for creation to spring out of nothingness is if there is an agent outside of space, time, and matter that can step into the non-restrictive environment of the nothing. This is, alas, the entire conclusion of the Kalam argument, so it seems there is nothing to refute here (no pun intended).



Rules for determining metaphysical possibilities:



Con asks what methodology we should use for accepting or rejecting metaphysical claims, lest we merely make them up as we go along. My answer is that we should use logic and observational science. Both confirm that things cannot begin to exist without a cause, and both confirm the universe began to exist. The vast majority of scientists and scholars acknowledge that the universe had a beginning. Specifically, the theorem developed in 2003 by cosmologist and professor of evolutionary science Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proves that the universe "cannot have an eternal past" and therefore must have had a finite beginning [1]. The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has also confirmed, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." [2].



If Con has stronger reasons for rejecting such methodologies, I would love to see them"



The universe did not begin to exist



Con makes the curious claim that there is no point where the universe did not exist, i.e., the universe has always existed. This would mean, according to our definitions, that time has also existed eternally into the past. This not only goes against scientific observation (see above), but it is also logically impossible. Assuming an A theory of time (I"ll get to B Theory next), the past cannot be infinite. For example - if an infinite series of events had to occur in the past in order to bring us to the present, we would never actually arrive at the present because an infinite series of events can never be completed. This concept is called "The Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite." Con has given no evidence in this section to accept their claim that the universe has always existed, as there are no citations to be found.



B Theory Time



Here, Con is correct in saying the Kalam is incompatible with B Theory time, but there is little reason to accept B Theory time as true. For example, if time is tenseless, and past, present, and future are equally real, then our present selves should possess as many future "memories" as we do past ones. But we do not, we only perceive past memories and present experiences, suggesting an A theory of time. Next, if the past, present, and future are all equally real and tenseless (meaning simultaneously existing), then the human experience of pain and suffering makes no sense. Consider having a headache at night, going to sleep, and awaking headache free. You man exclaim "thank goodness the headache is gone." But this makes no sense if we live in B Theory Time "" if past, present, and future are equally real, it makes no sense to be more thankful for a headache that occurred earlier than for one that has yet to occur "" such an exclamation is nonsensical. Instead, we experience the headache as an A fact, and A facts only exist in A time [3]. There are numerous other problems with B Theory time, but I"ll stop there for now. In sum, one must ask "" if the universe operates according to B Theory time, why do we so intensely experience it as if it were A Theory?



Con stated that "B theory is more likely true than A Theory" but did not explain why. Con will need to present a more detailed case in order to call for a rejection of A Theory.



Back to you, Con.



[1] http://arxiv.org......
[2] http://www.hawking.org.uk......

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
illegalcombat

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Objection: You can't get metaphysical absolutes from our observations in our universe

Lets be clear here, Pros premise and any underlying hidden premises to support their argument is entirely on their own shoulders. Pro can't just defend an unsupported assumption like what ever is true of the natural world is also true of the natural world as a whole and/or true of anything and everything beyond our universe with a retort that amounts to I'm right till you prove me wrong.

With all that said even if you grant that metaphysical absolutes can be justified on what we observe or don't observe in our universe this backfires for Pro which I will go into more detail later.

(Pros Assumption 1: Something cannot create itself)

Consider where Pro says..."In order for something to create itself, it must have already existed in order to take part in the creating"

Sure if there is a prior state (before) where X did not exist, and later on X exists, to say in such a case X caused it's own existence runs into all sorts of contradictions. BUT, such a contradiction does not arise if time ( a before & after) is not a variable.

As such even granting Pros claim here, it still leaves the possibility of X being self caused, where X had no time prior where it did not exist.

(Pros Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something)

Objection: Circular reasoning


Recall that even if granted that a state of nothing has no casual power, and thus in the MOST LITERAL sense, nothing can't create something, nothing also has no power to restrict something from beginning to exist, yes, even something beginning to exist without a cause.

Consider Pros response to that..." if nothing is all there is, then nothing will be created. It matters not whether nothing can act as a restriction, because nothing will begin if nothing is all there is"

This only makes sense if you already assume before hand that all things that begin to exist must have a cause, but that is the very thing Pro is trying to justify in the first place.

Pros justification here is utterly circular.

What are the rules for determining metaphysical possibilities/impossibilities ?

Lets say in-spite of my earlier objections we take note of what we observe in our universe and from such observations this justifies the extrapolation of absolute metaphysical claims of what is possible or impossible.

Say for instance that everything we observe in our universe that begins to exist has a cause, and thus we now conclude as an absolute metaphysical rule everything that begins to exist must have a cause. So under such a methodology Pros metaphysical absolute that everything that begins to exist must have a cause is justified.

But if we accept such a methodology are there other absolute metaphysical rules we can like wise justify ? You betcha.

Wes Morriston argues as follows..."It is also worthy of note that the empirical route is quite a dangerous one for the
friends of the kalām argument to take if they want to conclude that the universe was created out of nothing by the will of a timeless and immaterial person a long time ago. Here are some other well-attested empirical generalizations, each of which is incompatible with that hypothesis about the origin of the universe.

(A)Material things come from material things.

(B) Nothing is ever created out of nothing.

(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time.

(D)The mental lives of all persons have temporal duration.

(E) All persons are embodied.

It might of course be said that while these generalizations apply within the natural order,
they do not apply to the natural order as a whole or to its cause. But then, of course, one
could reasonably ask why the same should not be said of the claim that whatever begins
to exist has a cause.

It is also worth pointing out that prima facie, at least, quite a number of these
generalizations have as much claim to be metaphysical truths as Craig"s premise 1. One
might be left with the impression that the friends of the kalām argument are picking and
choosing metaphysical principles to suit the needs of the argument they want to make" [1]

I'd like to draw specific attention to the following two metaphysical claims.....

"(A)Material things come from material things." And thus contradicts Pros claim that the material universe had a non material cause.

"(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time." And thus contradicts Pros claim that the universe has a timeless cause.

In case it wasn't obvious, I am not going to let Pro just pick and choose what metaphysical propositions should or should not be accepted as to allow them to just stack the deck in favour of their side of the argument. This is where such a non arbitrary method of justifying metaphysical absolutes gets you, it gets you to metaphysical propositions that contradict various premises that Pro needs in order for their argument to work.

The universe did not began to exist

1) X began to exist, if and only if X exists, and there was a time in the past where X did not exist.
2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not exist
C) Therefore the universe did not "began" to exist.

Contra Pro, I was more specific than Pros phrasing would have you believe as I argued that..."There is no point in time where the universe did not exist, this is still the case if the universe is billions of years old/has a finite past, as there is no time before the existence of the universe and thus no "prior" state in which the universe did not exist."

I grant that the universe has a finite past, and is not eternal in the sense of having an actual infinite time duration, this makes no difference to my argument here.

Maybe Pro or the reader has committed the following false equivalency fallacy thinking either...

1) The universe is eternal and has not began to exist.

or

2) The universe has a finite past and began to exist.

The reason this is a fallacy is because there is a third option on the table...

3) The universe has a finite past and did not began to exist.

Pro has shown no fault against my argument on what it means for something to begin to exist, nor does Pro dispute that there is no prior state (speaking time wise) in which the universe was absent.

Hawking writes..."If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. " [2]

KCA is incompatible with B theory of time

Even if my arguments for B theory of time are fatally flawed, Pro has to at least justify A theory of time as more likely true than B theory. Pro needs A theory of time for their side of the argument.

I look forward to Pros reply.

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[2] http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
sengejuri

Pro

Thank you Con.

Con begins with a type of "burden of proof" objection, claiming my position amounts to saying "I"m right till you prove me wrong." So before we continue, let"s discuss burden of proof.

In most debates, the one making the positive claim (usually Pro) bears BOP. Yet, this does not mean Pro must state their argument by presenting evidence against any possible objection to their position. Indeed, doing so for this topic would require volumes upon volumes! Rather, it starts by presenting the argument, listening to the specific objections brought against it, and then defending against those objections. The "proof" comes largely in defending against the specific objections raised. Implicit to assigning a "burden of proof" to one side is assuming a "burden of attack" by the other. This does not mean Con has to prove me wrong, but they do have to raise objections against which I must defend. If my defense fails, then I have not met my BOP and I lose. So a more accurate characterization would be "my argument remains intact till your rebuttals show it does not."

Something cannot create itself:

Con"s objection here makes no sense. Attempting to argue that something can be self-created in a timeless dimension goes against the very definition of the word "create." Create implies that before, something did not exist, and later it did " the instant of the transition is the "creation." Such description is only possible within a time dimension, so claiming something can be self-caused outside of time is a meaningless statement. Without time, there would be no creation, not even self-creation. The universe would just "be." This is only possible in B Theory time, and I have given clear reasons why B Theory is unlikely to be true. I will touch on this more later.

Nothing cannot create something:

Con accuses me of circular reasoning. Con says, "This only makes sense if you already assume beforehand that all things that begin to exist must have a cause." Well, of course! It"s not a mere assumption, it"s a universal observation! That"s a premise of the whole argument, and it is Con"s job to demonstrate why that premise should be rejected, or at least doubted. I have invited Con to do so by challenging them to provide merely one example of something beginning to exist without cause, promising I would then immediately forfeit the debate. It is quite telling that Con has not responded to this challenge. I justify the validity of this premise through Inference to the Best Explanation: Everything we observe to exist is best explained by a cause. To defeat this premise, Con merely needs to present a single instance where this cause-effect relationship fails. Let"s see if they can do so in the final round.

Rules for determining metaphysical possibilities:

Con"s objection here has potential. Indeed, it would seem that if other metaphysical principles could be drawn from universal observations, some might contradict the Kalam argument. Con specifically highlights two: 1) Material things always come from material things. 2) Causes are always in temporal relation to their effects (paraphrase). The problem, for Con, is that these ARE NOT universally observed truths, and would therefore be unjustified metaphysical absolutes.

1) Material things always come from material things: Well, not always" for example, we have the power to control our own physical actions through our immaterial consciousness. Second, quantum vacuum fluctuations are examples that not everything that begins to exist has a material cause. In addition, the impossibility of an infinite regress of past events (Con actually admits "I grant that the universe has a finite past") means the universe"s cause cannot be material, because matter and energy are never quiescent. [1] Therefore, this metaphysical principle is not universally observed, and as such is unjustified.

2) Causes are always in temporal relation to their effects: There are reasons to believe this principle is not universally observed either. But even if it were, it does no damage to the Kalam argument. It is entirely possible that the First Cause existed timelessly without the universe, and then changed to a temporal relationship simultaneously at the moment of creation. There does not necessarily have to be a time lapse between the exercise of causal power and the production of an effect [2]. This would make the cause of the universe temporally simultaneous with the universe beginning to exist, which does not violate the principle in question.

Once again, all Con has to do is present a single example where my premises are not supported by observation. Until they do, we must conclude that the premises are more likely true than not. I am not "picking and choosing" or trying to "stack the deck." All I"m saying is that if something is universally observed to be true, then it is reasonable to accept it as a likely metaphysical absolute.

The universe did not begin to exist

Through Con"s further explanation of this objection, I can recognize it as a variation of Adolf Grunbaum"s critique of the Kalam. It is a clever, but mostly semantic, objection. As it goes, if there is a singularity beyond which time did not exist, and if a "beginning" is only possible if there is a "time" prior to the object"s existence, then the universe could never "begin" because there is no "time" prior to its existence. But once again, the easiest response to this is the possibility that cause and effect can be simultaneous. In fact, this is more than a possibility, it is a very common reality. Consider a chandelier hanging from a chain: The instant it is attached to the ceiling, the tensil strength of the chain causes the chandelier to resist gravity"s pull. It"s not as if the tensil strength activates and then the chandelier stops falling, but rather, they happen simultaneously. This rebuttal holds no water.

As far as Stephen Hawking"s imaginary time model, called the Hartle-Hawking Model, it"s just that " imaginary. Like the concept of imaginary numbers in math, imaginary time does not actually, physically exist. It is simply a tool used to make equations behave differently. It is purely a mathematical device used to make troublesome entities like complex numbers easier to model on paper. Astonishingly, Stephen Hawking himself admits this about his own theorem: "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities." [3] He then expands: "I"m a positivist. . . I don"t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don"t know what it is." [4] And again: "I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality." [5]

So we see that the possibility quoted at length by Con is merely a mathematical model that does not, by the author"s own admission, even correspond to reality. There is little to reason for accepting it and it does no damage to the Kalam.

B Theory Time

Finally, Con accuses me of not justifying why A Theory time is more likely than B Theory (which is amusing, since Con"s "argument" for B Theory in the last round amounted to merely describing it and then calming "B Theory is more likely true than A Theory" without further explanation). Conversely, I DID justify why A Theory is more likely, justifications that Con notably did not respond to.

The most basic justification I can give, to repeat, is that the way we experience (observe) time seems to confirm A Theory, while we have no experience of B Theory. The past is gone (we remember it), the present is here (we experience it), and the future is yet to come (we anticipate it). By the time you finish reading this sentence, you will perceive it as something you just did, and it is now in the past. This is exactly the experience that A Theory would predict. B Theory, conversely, would predict us having "memories" of events both past and future, since they are both equally real. This would mean time travel is also possible, which brings up the impossible paradox of being able to kill your past self. In addition, we would assign no meaning to phrases such as "thank goodness that"s over!" because there is no reason to be thankful for an event that simply occurred earlier than another if they are both equally and simultaneously real. But we do not experience any of these things. Therefore, that is reason enough to accept A Theory as more likely true.

Thank you Con for a truly fun debate!

[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[3] Hawking, Stephen, "A Brief History of Time," p. 138

[4] Hawking, Penrose, "Nature of Space and Time," p. 121

[5] Ibid., p. 3
illegalcombat

Con

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Objection: You can't get metaphysical absolutes from our observations in our universe

I maintain that going from how things are in our universe to therefore that's how things are about the universe as a whole and/or how things are for everything and anything beyond our universe with no exceptions is a HUGE leap to make, and Pro has an unjustified assumption in their argument that what is true of how things are in our universe is also true for anything and everything outside and beyond it.

Never the less, accepting from out own observations to metaphysical absolutes just creates more problems for Pro down the road.

(Pros Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something)

Objection: Circular reasoning

Recall that even if granted that a state of nothing has no casual power, and thus in the MOST LITERAL sense, nothing can't create something, nothing also has no power to restrict something from beginning to exist, yes, even something beginning to exist without a cause.

When pushed on how Pro was was justifying that even in a state of nothing, something else can't begin without a cause without assuming the impossibility of such a thing in the first place Pro replies...."Well, of course! It"s not a mere assumption, it"s a universal observation!"

Hang on, what is exactly does this "universal observation" that Pro invokes involve and justify exactly ?

That things that begin to exist in our universe have a cause ? ok.

That in a state of nothing that something else can't begin without a cause ? ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!

Once again It is shown Pro merely has already assumed anything that begins to exist must have a cause in order to justify the begins to exist must have a cause premise, circular reasoning.

The universe did not began to exist

1) X began to exist, if and only if X exists, and there was a time in the past where X did not exist.
2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not exist
C) Therefore the universe did not "began" to exist.

Previous round I said..."Maybe Pro or the reader has committed the following false equivalency fallacy thinking either..." That should be false dilemma fallacy [1].

I reject Pros claim that this is an argument based on semantics in the sense of being a mere word game. I gave a clear definition on what it means for something to begin to exist or not within the context of that argument.

Consider where Pro says..."Create implies that before, something did not exist, and later it did " the instant of the transition is the "creation." Such description is only possible within a time dimension,"

Notice "create" here can be replaced with caused. Created/caused implies that something did not exist and later on it did. Pros own reasoning here leads us to the conclusion that the universe was not created/caused.

Pro has shown no fault against my argument on what it means for something to begin to exist, nor does Pro dispute that there is no prior state (speaking time wise) in which the universe was absent.

What are the rules for determining metaphysical possibilities/impossibilities ?

Recall my argument here that if observations of our universe can be extrapolated to justify metaphysical absolutes, granted it gets Pro their what ever begins to exist must have a cause, likewise I argued other metaphysical absolutes could be justified such as...""(A)Material things come from material things." & "(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time."

(A)Material things come from material things.

Pro claims..."Material things always come from material things: Well, not always" for example, we have the power to control our own physical actions through our immaterial consciousness"

That's an extremely controversial position to take, and involves a debate in of it's self of what is or isn't going on in the mind-body problem [2]. Suffice to say at this point in the debate it just an unsupported assertion by Pro.

Pro claims..."Second, quantum vacuum fluctuations are examples that not everything that begins to exist has a material cause."

David Albert argues..."Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states " no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems " are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-"theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn"t this or that particular arrangement of the fields " what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don"t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don"t." [3]

I argue that contra Pro, we do NOT have observations of material things coming from immaterial things thus the metaphysical absolute that "Material things come from material things" is justified on the same grounds that Pro themself uses.

This contradicts Pros claim that the universe has an immaterial cause.

(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time.

Consider where Pro says..."There are reasons to believe this principle is not universally observed either."........and then gave not one example to counter this claim.

Once again same rules apply. We observe that causes exist in time without any observation to the contrary, ergo we extrapolate to the now metaphysical rule that causes must exist in time. This directly contradicts Pros claim that the cause of the universe is a timeless one.

Consider where Pro says..." It is entirely possible that the First Cause existed timelessly without the universe, and then changed to a temporal relationship simultaneously at the moment of creation"

If the cause of the universe exists "simultaneously" with the effect, then the cause is not timeless now is it ?

Interesting possibilities aside it's irrelevant, cause Pro didn't allow mere possibility to be allowed to trump their absolute metaphysics justified on what we observe, like wise Pro is granted no such trump card against my absolute metaphysics against their argument which are also justified on observation extrapolated to metaphysical absolutes.

I argue that I have established two metaphysical absolutes using the same standard that Pro used that directly contradict Pros argument.

Kalam is incompatible with B theory of time

Granted I only briefly mentioned Einsteins relativity..."In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there's no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.

Many of special relativity's now-proven counter-intuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity implies eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk"Putnam argument and additionally in an advanced form of this argument called the Andromeda paradox, created by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose. [4]

Pro argues what seems to be the case, but like the sun going down, and the moon can look bigger than the sun, appearances can be deceiving.

Pro seems to imply that cause he doesn't have Dr Manhattan [5] powers of perceiving past/present/future this counts against B theory, does B theory logically entail such a thing ? no.

I thank Pro for the debate, it has been fun.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://watchmen.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sengejuri 2 months ago
sengejuri
Sure
Posted by illegalcombat 2 months ago
illegalcombat
Round 2 - Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)

I'm going to want the option to rebutt/counter argument in round 2, are you ok with that ?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 month ago
Death23
sengejuriillegalcombat
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: .