KCA Debate

Ave.I’m happy to see that Pro decided to continue with the debate. I’ll start off my rebuttal with a summary of things that were ignored by Pro, and then I’ll answer the points she made in the last round.1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.The following points were not addressed by Pro in her last round. We can consider them to be true because of this.- The theory of relativity is true.- FLRK metrics are derived from the theory of relativity.- These metrics also state that every interval of time is 'half open'.- A first state of time cannot be half-open, because if it were, then it would not be a true first state of time. - The theory of relativity shows that a first state of time does not exist.- If a first state of time does not exist, then god cannot cause the first state of time. - Therefore, there is an attribute of god that cannot be actualized. The only thing Pro objects to is that the KCA assumes god created a first state of time. Instead, writes Pro, there is a finite past that had to be caused by god. The difference between this and god causing the first state of time is as large as the difference between H2O and water. If time is a series of states that exhaust at a point in the past, and god created time, then god would have to cause that point, or first state of time. There is no operative difference between god causing the first state of time and time having a finite past. The KCA does assume that god caused a first state of time. This assumption is wrong because of all the reasons above, none of which were answered to by Pro.2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.First of all, I wasn't even trying to explain the origins of the universe using simultaneous causation. I was trying to explain the origins of matter using simultaneous causation. The universe is much more than matter, because it contains over things like space-time. The notion that point two was trying to explain the universe is false.Remember what I said in my last round: Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time.The mechanism of how matter forms is simultaneous causation. The cause of the mechanism is that each atom is causing another atom to begin to exist, and they all begin to exist at the same time. Ergo, there is both a mechanism and a cause of that mechanism. There is both a 'how' and a 'what', contrary to what Pro asserts.3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.I’ll present another list of points that were not answered to, so it can be assumed that they are true.- The WFU is confirmed by a large amount of empirical evidence.- The WFU says that our universe has a 95% chance of coming into being.- If an omnipotent god willed our universe, it would have a 100% chance of coming into being.Contrary to what Pro asserts, an explanation of the origin of the universe is not meant to undermine a cause to the universe. It's meant to show what that cause is! As Quentin Smith says about Hawking, 'He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.' This is a causal explanation of the universe. The universe exists because it is connected to a timeless, four-dimensional hypersphere. What caused this hypersphere? It doesn't need a cause, because it exists out of time, just like the theistic conception of god.(The four dimensional hypersphere is an implication of the WFU.)Pro thinks that there is still room for god to have caused the universe to exist, even with this in mind. I'll turn to this idea in point four.4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.Keep in mind the three points that can be assumed to be true because Pro has not answered them.- The WFU is confirmed by a large amount of empirical evidence.- The WFU says that our universe has a 95% chance of coming into being.- If an omnipotent god willed our universe, it would have a 100% chance of coming into being.Pro argues that the WVU does not contradict the existence of god. Unfortunately, she never explains why this is the case. If god wills the universe to exist, then there is a 100% chance that the universe will exist. Otherwise, god would not be omnipotent. However, the science shows that a universe like ours only has a 95% chance of existing. Therefore, it could not have been willed by an omnipotent god. This is a logically valid modus tollens argument. P implies Q, not Q, therefore not P. If the universe was created by an omnipotent god (P), then the probability of our universe existing would be 100% (Q). The probability of our universe existing is not 100% (not Q), therefore the universe was not caused by an omnipotent god (not P). The only thing left to do is prove that the premises are true, and since Pro has not touched the premises, they should be considered as true. Therefore, this point stands, and the WVU contradicts the existence of a god who caused the universe.ConclusionPro does not answer many of the points I made, so we can assume the points to be true until they answered to. I have demonstrated that Pro's answers to my points are unsatisfactory to establish the proponderance of evidence in his favor. A Con vote is most justified.Vale.