God is not real

Thanks, Pro.The Kalam Cosmological Argument In the opening round, I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God’s existence. I will now address my opponent’s response to this argument. P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause. “Yes I agree but you do not specify that a cause HAS to be immaterialistic I could just as easily say that everything physical that exists must have a physical cause and that the universe is physical therefore it must have a physical cause (i.e. not God)” As I did indeed specify in the opening round, the cause of the universe must be immaterial. The Big Bang brought about space and time. Without space, there can be no material entities; there can be nothing physical at all. So, the cause of the universe must have been immaterial. The idea of a physical entity bringing about “physicalness” itself would be equivalent to a newborn giving birth to itself; the idea is absurd. “When and how did universe begin to exist?” The universe began to exist about 13.8 billion years ago. The universe came about by means of the Big Bang. “We still do not know that the universe had a beginning as the big bang theory describes it for fact” We don’t “know” this in the same sense that we don’t know whether the theory of evolution is true. But, as rationally thinking individuals, I hope you’d agree that we’re obligated to follow the evidence where it leads. Moreover, I pointed out the absurdity of an eternal universe in the opening round. This would entail an infinite number of past events, but as we know, infinity is merely an idea and cannot coherently exist in reality. So, I’d say it’s as clear as night and day that the universe did have a beginning. “you are assuming that infinity is a finite number" I’m not at all suggesting that infinity is a finite number. Infinity, by its very nature, is not a finite number. What I’m saying is that if it were the case that infinity existed in reality, contradictions (like the one above) would be present. Another example of the absurdity of an infinity in reality would be Hilbert’s Hotel: "you claim that a being with infinite knowledge and infinite power somehow created the universe" I haven’t at any time said that a “being with infinite knowledge and infinite power somehow created the universe”. At several points in this debate, you’ve attempted to misconstrue my words in order to give yourself an easier time at arguing against them. I haven’t contradicted myself because I didn’t suggest that God has infinite properties, so out of respect for the discussion please do not suggest that I have. Rebuttal to my Opponent’s Arguments “There was nothing before the big bang” I’d like to note the concession of the truth of the second premise in the Kalam Cosmological argument here. My opponent has stated that there was no universe before the Big Bang, and as such the universe must have had a beginning. “it does not in any way give room for a God to have used a spell to create the universe” Once again, I haven’t suggested that God “used a spell to create the universe”. God, if he exists, is immaterial. So while we agree that nothing material existed before the Big Bang, there is no reason to think that nothing immaterial existed. For example, are you willing to argue that abstract objects (numbers, truth propositions, etc.) did not exist before the Big Bang? “That is just forced conclusions drawn to fit ones wishful thinking” I’m not sure why you assert that the conclusion of a deductive logical argument is “forced” or “wishful thinking”. In philosophy, it doesn’t do you much good to call the arguments (or their conclusions) silly names. If you wish to disagree with the argument’s conclusion that God exists, please offer some sort of reason or argument so that you might be taken more seriously. As you’ve already conceded that the universe must have had a beginning, you must either provide evidence to think that everything that begins to exist does not have a cause, or else agree with the first premise as well. If you are unable to show the first premise (which states that “everything that begins to exist has a cause”) to be false, then the conclusion “God exists” follows logically and necessarily. “Empty space-time (or vacuum) has energy" I wouldn’t consider energy to be “nothing”, would you? I agree that a vacuum state has energy, but this is irrelevant. We know both from (1) the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem and (2) the absurdity of infinity that space and time cannot be eternal. Your suggestion, correct me if I’m wrong, is that there can be energy without “space”. But this seems to me to be trivially false. Energy is physical, and as such it cannot exist in the absence of physical space. “out of fluctuations in that energy matter and its counter part anti-matter can be created spontaneously” Again, this does nothing to show how energy itself came to be. I’m really not concerned with what happened after space and time began to exist. The point, as stated in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is that space (including energy) and time did have a beginning. “then you could have the creation of matter from nothing” No, not from nothing. If energy exists then we’d be incorrect in asserting that there is nothing, as “nothing” is by definition the absence of “something” (i.e. energy). “This of course has not been proved like God” I assume this is a typo, but if not I’ll gladly take the concession that God’s existence has been “proved”. "there would be no point of creation eliminating the need for a god” If this is your view, then please provide some sort of evidence or argument for thinking that the universe is eternal. I can’t respond to evidence that isn’t provided. “the multiverse theory” The multiverse theory doesn’t eliminate the need for a causal beginning. You might say that a previous universe caused our universe, but eventually you would find yourself in an infinite regress of universes. As we have (I hope) established already, infinity cannot exist in reality. So, even if the multiverse theory holds (and you haven’t, by the way, given any reason to think it does) a cause remains necessary. “to win this debate my opponent must disprove all these theories” Not a single one of the theories you presented conflicts with the two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Each of your theories (which you didn’t provide any evidence for) requires a cause of the universe, and none of them provide any candidates for this cause. So, if anything, these theories serve as evidence in favor of my own position that God exists. Summary Recall that in order to reject the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (God exists), one must show at least one of the argument’s premises to be false. My opponent has not even attempted to show either premise to be false thus far, instead opting to argue against points I have not made. On the other side, my opponent has presented (without evidence for thinking they’re true) several theories. The problem is that none of these theories avoid a beginning of space and time. My opponent has attempted to evade this by arguing that energy is “nothing”, but of course energy is physical and as such it is surely “something” and not “nothing”. At this point in the debate, The Kalam Cosmological Argument remains standing. In order for my opponent to reject God’s existence, he must argue against one of the argument’s premises. Moreover, my opponent has yet to provide any sort of argument or evidence in favor of his own position that “God is not real”. As such, this assertion remains unwarranted. As my opponent has failed to fulfill his share of the burden of proof in this debate, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that God exists. Thank you.Sourceshttp://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...