Smithereens Religious Tourney Rd.1 KCA is sound!

"The Universe Began to Exist" "Time" I'll agree with pro on time being finite. I will, however, note that pro has not made an argument against infinity in general. He's only attacking an infinity in time. "Big-Bang" I do, of course, agree with the Big-Bang. =Pro's arguments are both a non sequitur= Pro hasn't actually made an argument for P.2. The big bang theory does not necessarily mark the beginning of the universe and a finitude of time doesn't say anything about whether the universe began to exist either, as I'll explain. By universe, I assume we mean all matter and energy, at least that we see around us. None of my opponents arguments have proved any matter and energy have begun to exist. I'll start with the big bang since it's less contentiousness. Nothing about the big bang theory says anything began to exist. The theory doesn't go anywhere before the singularity [1]. It's just a theory of how our universe came to be as it is. There are theories, such as the oscillating universe theory, which posits the big bang was not the start. According to this theory, when our universe collapses, it will result in another big bang, like the one that happened 13.8 billion years ago [2]. The theory states that our big bang could have been the nth cycle of this collapse and inflation. I'm not making an argument for the theory. I'm simply pointing out that the big bang in no way points to the beginning of the universe, just the universe as we know it. The finitude of time also does not prove the universe began to exist. If this seems puzzling at first, I'm sure it soon won't be. We observe around us one dimension of time and three dimensions of space. It's obvious that both types of dimensions make up our universe. However, my opponent has only made an argument that the dimension of time has begun to exist. He hasn't stated anything about the dimensions of space. Time may very well have begun to exist, but that does not point to space having had a start. I'm not going to pretend to know what space looks like without time, but simply because we're so used to time and space both existing around us, does not mean their existence is contingent on each other. Time began to exist. Very well. That does not mean the dimensions of space began. We have at least 4 dimensions that make up the universe as we see it. Pro's only proven one has had a beginning. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" Pro has done almost no job in defending this premise. My opponent defends this premise by way of the principle of sufficient reason. Unfortunately I see for little reason to hold this view and hardly any given by pro. Off the bat I could just point out that, we haven't see anything come into existence except ex materia and everything we experience is only in this universe. The beginning of the universe is completely separate from anything we experience. Does pro really think relying on an intuition that exists in us due to millions of years of creatures seeing the world as it was in practical everyday life, is a sound argument for parts of reality separate from all we have experienced? There's a reason science can be so awe inspiring. It presents us with facts about the world completely separate from our everyday intuition, which evolved from creatures never presented with anything beyond everyday experience. The beginning of the universe was an astronomically profound event no matter what the explanation is and just reverting to intuition is quite frankly an embarrassing way to deal with it. Pro should show how everyday intuition is something to be relied upon in matters such as these. Now of course, we can, by intuition, find it absurd to conceive of objects randomly beginning to exist out of thing air, but the laws that govern everyday experience, do not necessarily apply to before the universe. That seems almost self-evident to me. The laws of the universe govern the universe. It doesn't mean they govern what's outside the universe and the beginning of it. There is also literally no empirical evidence that supports this premise. Quite the opposite actually. First, it's empirically impossible to verify it since it's a universal statement about nature that would require deductive proof. If we said all cats are black, that would be unverifiable since there would always be more cats to examine to see if they're black and nothing about the notion of "cat" entails "black". In the same way, nothing about the notion of things beginning to exist entails reason for existence. So it is therefore an empirical statement, but cannot be verified a posteriori since it's universal and unable to be proven by deductive argument. Even if all we observed had a cause, there's still much we haven't observed, so no a posteriori evidence can be presented to this statement of nature. Quite importantly, we can also, and if I may too boldly say, without much dispute, deduce that "out of nothing, nothing comes", is a senseless principle. "Nothing" is the absence of everything, therefore, also absent from logic. No logical laws can be applied to "nothing" so you cannot say that nothing can come from nothing. It does entail contradictions such as that nothing has no potential to become something yet also can become something, but as laws of logic don't apply to "nothing" that's entirely fine. As stated, experience can be used to invalidate the claim. Now, we have not observed anything begin to exist except ex-materia, but in this realm, we do observe things acting random and contradictory to the principle of sufficient reason. On the quantum realm, all everyday intuition is let go. Things happen at random. Nothing is predictable. Probabilities exist but not inevitability like in the normal realm of life and Newtonian physics. Things happen uncaused all the time. The appearance of "virtual particles" come into being spontaneously & stochastically in empty space, meaning there is no external cause & it is impossible to predict when it will happen. Quantum fluctuations are the "temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation." [3] Leading physicist Michio Kaku says that there is uncertainty in whatever we do because there's "uncertainty with regards to the position of the electron".[4] This dispels notions like that of the principle of sufficient reason. Things happen entirely different from what intuition would have us seem to be the case. It also makes an uncaused beginning seem plausible. If things happen within our universe uncaused, there's no reason to find it plausible that the universe could have had no cause either. So how did it begin? Well, whatever way it did begin, if it had a beginning, is, no matter what, profound and there's no reason to say matter and energy could not have begun from nothing. Actually, it's contradictory to the very notion of "nothing" to say as such. The singularity is not necessarily the beginning of the universe. It could have all began a while before with whatever explanation. Stephen Hawking himself combines general relativity with quantum theory as an explanation and predicts that small fluctuations would develop into the structure of the universe [5]. The Cause So far, pro has neglected from his most crucial task, to prove that God exists! All he's done is try to prove the universe began to exist and had a cause but the KCA is an argument for not just a cause, but God. Pro hasn't provided any reasoning as to why the universe must have been caused by God, if it indeed was caused at all.[1] http://big-bang-theory.com...[2] http://www.universetoday.com...[3] http://universe-review.ca... [4] video www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I Michio Kaku[5] http://www.hawking.org.uk...