It is plausible to assume that a finite universe was caused or created by a creator

Rebuttal: 1. Semantics of "Universe" As Pro, I disagree to the definition, "'Our four dimensional space-time, and all the matter, particles, energy and all the laws of physics that a part of it'", to be the definition of what our universe is. The definition assumes too much of what the universe encompasses. It is simpler to say that the universe is the entire matter and energy in the cosmos. This is the common definition for the universe as stated in the Oxford dictionary for example; "(the universe) All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." - (1) Another similar definition given by Merriam Webster: "the universe : all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc." - (2) And finally from Dictionary.com: "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm." - (3) I have tried searching for a more 'scientific' and reliable definition of the universe and have come up short. This is why I see the above definitions to be suitable for defining the universe in this debate. 2. Impossible to justify claims regarding the Universe as a whole I would like to point out that Con is correct in saying that there is no justification to predict the future. That we do not know everything and therefore cannot make a correct prediction or deduction. However, that is only true for truth claims. When it comes to plausible scenarios then it is still valid. Whether the argument is sound is not purported in the resolution. The resolution proposes only the plausibility of such. Yes. We cannot justifiably make true claims of reality in the future. We do not have enough instruments and knowledge to come up with evidence just from induction. But we can still justifiably make claims that are plausible. Granted, they might not be wholly true, however, they can still plausibly be true. If Con shows that the arguments supporting the resolution are implausible then the resolution fails. Either this, or Con can make an opposite argument against the resolution that is much more plausible than Pros. And therefore it is important for the readers to determine if Con has succeeded in either. 2.1 Application to the Big Bang Again, if this debate was on the truth claims of the universe then it would be utterly impossible to do so as Con argues we do not have the sufficient understandings of the singularity to properly debate its origins. As pro, I argue however, that the probability of the likely origins of the singularity should not be overlooked and therefore is worth debating. This is why quantum theories exist is to argue a notion that may be absurd but plausible and probable. Just as Con puts forth the theory of quantum gravity, a theory that seeks to explain gravity using quantum principles rather than Einstein's theory of relativity, is making non posteriori claims. Con assumes that I am claiming a 'reality' or a 'truth' where in actuality I am just merely proposing the probability of the origins of the big bang/singularity if the universe is finite. Therefore, as Pro, I am not obliged to make a 'sound' argument, rather I only have to come up with a 'plausible' and valid argument. In other words. True, the origins of the Big Bang cannot be known without priori principles. But that is only if the resolution was 'X comes from Y' rather than 'X plausibly comes from Y'. In order to negate this latter argument, Con has to come up with a counter argument that is more plausible. In so far as round 1, Con has not found any logical fallacies or showed how Pro's arguments are logically invalid and therefore Con can only come up with a better more plausible argument for the origins or lack of origins of the big bang (in a finite universe). 2.2 Application to the Universe as a Whole Causality is separate from the Universe. I argue that the Universe is subject to causality and that causality is not subject to the Universe. Consider the expansion of the universe. How does it do so? it needs to occupy more and more of the dimension of space. And how does the Universe change its state without time? It is logically impossible for the Big Bang to emerge from no time at all if time is directly linked to causality. This is why, it is more plausible to assume that time/causality is a dimension/principle separate from the Universe. 3. The explanation/cause of the universe Con has mistaken me for arguing that the "the explanation of the universe is X". The resolution was, again, one that focused on plausibility, not soundness. I did not argue that 'a finite universe was caused or created by a creator'. I argued that it "is plausible to assume a finite universe to be caused or created by a creator." I also outlined that "'created' assumes that there was intention in the creation process and 'caused' assumes there was no intention or purpose in the creation process.'" I included both in the resolution so that I do not, "leave out the possibility that the universe was 'created". And to argue that the Universe was caused or created by a 'creator', I provided a syllogism: P1) If the Universe is finite, then it was caused either by a creator or by nothing. P2) It is not possible for a finite universe to be caused by nothing since nothing can be caused by nothing. P3) It is possible for a finite universe to be caused by a creator. C) Therefore, it is plausible to assume a finite universe to be caused by a creator. However, Con has not refuted this syllogism directly and therefore I assume that the argument is at least logically valid. And the only other way for Con to negate the resolution was to provide a more plausible and logically valid counter argument against the resolution. Con does not do this however, though he does provide a syllogism: P1) Intentionality requires functioning mental processes P2) All mental processes are temporal P3) The explanation of the universe is necessarily atemporal C) The explanation of the universe is necessarliy not intentional However, this is not the counter argument to the resolution. It is a counter argument to Con's previous assumption of my proposition that the universe was 'created' and not 'caused'. Therefore, Con has yet to provide a counter argument to the resolution that "It is plausible to assume that a finite universe was caused or created by a creator" and so the resolution remains unnegated. Sources: (1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com...