The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Appeal to Authority: It does not matter why he quoted a particular person, what matters is the testimony they provide based on their expertise. Apeiron's expertise as claimed by my opponent was clearly intended to give him a form of legitimacy, but because this is unverifiable, it constitutes an appeal to authority. Begging the Question: My opponent claimed that Moden Ponens arguments are logically valid. That's begging the question. I ask my opponent to give me an example of a Moden Ponens argument that is NOT logically valid. This is like saying “facts are facts”. He also claims this with the “truth of the premise is that they're true”. Association Fallacy: My opponent tried to claim the legitimacy of PSR with it's association of empirical evidence via a priori knowledge. This is an association fallacy, due to the fact that the PSR has nothing to do with empirical evidence, it actually notes this in his own source! Bare Assertion Fallacy: My opponent conceeds. Correlation/Causation: My opponent also concedes here. Thus, he has to show every other single cause couldn't possibly have created the universe, before concluding that in fact God did. Even if point 1 and 2 were true, it still does not account for the big bang theory, or the loop theory, or even the steady state theory. He gives no reason to believe that the only explanation is God. Straw man accusations: The accusations of causation fallacies, and the bare assertion fallacy were dropped by my opponent. I have shown that my opponent not only begged the question, but also made an appeal to authority, and an association fallacy. These are not straw mans, and as a result, my opponent commits a fallacy fallacy. Ignoratio Elenchi: This is the fallacy of relevance. The grim reaper paradox has nothing to do with this debate. The question concerns A/B theory of the universe, not presentism. Through the Rietdijk–Putnam argument, using special realitivity (empirical proof) everyone has their own plane of simultaneity. [5] This is also seen through length contraction and time dilation as scientific proof. Thus eternalism must be taken here even if it was relevant, otherwise with presentism you have to believe that say, Einstein never existed, because he lived wholly in the past. But he DID exist, so presentism cannot be correct.[6] Reductio ad Absurdum: “This argument, and its attempt to reify negative terms, is absurd. Sure, there are no rules on nothing, but there is nothing that allows nothing to do anything as well. Nothing has no rules, but no potentialities.” And “Firstly, the potentiality argument. If there is a state of absolute nothingness, then there is no potential for anything to happen. If there is no potential for anything to happen, then there is no potential for a universe to come out of nothing.” Copenhagen Interpretation versus Bell Theory: 1) the two are NOT in conflict. The answer is actually string theory![7] It is the only theory that actually connects everything in the world, accounting for both relativity and Bell theorem. We actually use this today in space to not only predict when the cosmos expand (or a red shift in astronomy) but also in atomic clocks which change “tick” speeds in space when leaving earths orbit. The second mistake is simple: The Copenhagen interpretation is the “standard” view of most physicists. I have no idea where my opponent justifies his claim that it is rejected today.[1] The “Nothingness” Debate: My opponent is actually correct on this. He is right to show that physicists believe that Quantum Vacuums are not exactly “nothing”. However, what is clear here is his misguided definition of nothing, assuming he thinks nothing is literally nothing in space and time – an absence of all matter in an area with nothing occupying it. This is wrong for several reasons: 1) it violates the conversion of mass (mass is never created nor destroyed) implying that SOMETHING is always around, and 2) The type of nothingness my opponent assumes empirically does NOT exist. This view of nothingness is taken by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jim Holt, and Eva Silverstein, that no matter what, if the laws of physics apply, the best your going to get to nothing is a Quantum Vacuum, and the layman’s terms of nothingness simply does not exist. This is called theological noncognitivism.[2][3] In fact he can't even believe in complete nothingness because his God always exists! God/Time:B theory requires there to always be an existance, whereas A has a beginning. God is timeless and uncaused, then this indicates B theory, because he's always existed! My opponent goes on to claim that this isn't possible; beginning is only concerned with the Cosmos, but he causes the universe to exist, which means that the beginning must start before the creation of the cosmos. Furthermore, this too is the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi because at no point is A theory dependant on the cosmos expanding. It just believes that there is a begining to the creation of the universe, whereas B theory claims it's always existed. Both of us agree the universe expands, but his accusing me of changing "absolute begining" doesn't actually address my argument at all. Furthermore, he cannot possibly believe in the conservation of mass and try to simultainously justify God. Otherwise, he reaffirms B theory. Also, B theory has Quantum Physics to support it, and Einstein's special realitivity, something my opponent drops completely. [4] In fact his own source claiming to contradict special realitivity actually re-affirms it too stating "quantum mechanics must have this extrordinary character, i.e must violate locality constraint that is motivated by realitivity" The article even goes on to note Einstein once again as a member of the EPR using locality principals. Thanks Vulpes! If on the other hand he continues to justify God under A theory as timeless, he couldn't create the world because he is unchanging (meaning also unintelligent, unmoving, etc...), and even if he does exist outside of time as my opponent suggests then the argument does not follow and committs question begging yet again. Finally, Concerning Poor Vilenkin: "[T]he state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe." - Alexander Vilenkin in his book Many Worlds in One (2006), Page 181Again, my opponent unequivocally cherry-picks Vilenkin's work to prove a point. This directly contradicts my opponentns point that Vilenkin always believed in a begining of the cosmos. He does not, with the Quantum nucleation theory, he has to believe that quantum electricity exists eternally (B Theory not A like my opponent claims). As I noted in my previous round out of his own work on the same page my opponent cited Vilenkin tries to explain the begining of the expansion of the cosmos, not the absolute begining of it. It is important to note the context in which my opponent cites Vilenkin; he takes it ironically OUT of context to prove HIS point. Not the conclusions of the actual work it's self. Ergo cherry-picking. Also, I never accused my opponent of cherry-picking due to his disbelief in God, I mearly noted that because they don't believe in God, one should suspect they wouldn't argue in support of him. I was correct, he never actually does. And he never uses the whole evidence of Vilenkin's work.1) my opponent uses several fallacious arguments, these need to be addressed2) I make a case for B theory of time, show contradictions of my opponent. And empirical proof3) Showed how mass is eternal, along with the actual beliefs of several physicists 4) Used the help my opponent gave me ;)5) Killed God using science! His existance isn't possible. Now watch the beast known as Vulpes respond. Cricky he's a beauty! This on discovery channel! Source:http://www.debate.org...