The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Thanks Vulpes, having never debated this topic before -- and I mean this in the nicest way possible -- if I am to lose, I hope to put you through hell and back before that happens. None the less, lets examine your argument shall we? Fallacies: Appeal to Authority – My opponent uses testimony from Apeiron and claims that his testimony is legitimate due to his background in science and philosophy. However this is unverified, and anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet. This testimony is rendered null-and-void. Bare Assertion Fallacy – My opponent claims this in premise one, that everything has a cause which creates an effect, and that this is a priori. Meaning that this is so self evident that one does not have to use any form of experimentation to disprove it. Or in more simplistic terms: that's just the way it is. It is not, I'll address this later. Begging the Question – My opponent states the following: “Overtly, the argument is a logically valid modus ponens argument “ and also states “The only issue with this argument is the truth of the premises. Therefore, I will attempt to demonstrate the premises to be true”. Well of-course modus ponens is logically sound, otherwise it's called “affirming the consequent” which is fallacious. Furthermore, if the only issue with the KCA was the “truth of the premises” then this logic is actually unsound, because it is unfalsifiable and thus a weak argument. Association Fallacy – The PSR[7] does not account for Quantum Vacuums, which are in fact observable. There is literally no reason for energy to fluctuate in a point in space which creates an electron. Furthermore, this is still in line with the laws of physics, through the law of conservation of mass.[8] Meaning that mass can never be created nor destroyed.[8] And furthermore, even by his own source, it notes that PSR is highly controversial philosophically speaking.[7] Thus this empirical truth of Quantum Vacuums IS observable (not a priori) and still contradicts PSR; they happen without cause which I shall expand on later. First, Principal of Sufficient Reason/Modus Ponens: Is not a Modus Ponens argument but instead affirms the consequent, a fallacious way of arguing. In other words even if hypothetically speaking premise 1 and 2 were true it does not imply that the conclusion is in fact God. Thus the principal of sufficient reason cannot possibly be used here; it would mean my opponent commits a causation fallacy. If instead my opponent wishes to take the argument the other way and state God is defined as an unchanging, uncaused, intelligent being, (as defined in the KCA) and everything has a cause and effect as my opponent claims, then the KCA does not acount for the cause of God. Even by my opponents admission, the first premis MUST be negated, otherwise he himself cannot account for God. In supporting the KCA, my opponent himself accounts for the very fall of his first premise; that something CAN in fact come from nothing. Either way premise 1 falls. Quantum fluctuation which is simply the temporary change of energy of a point in space, is an excellent example to disprove the first premise[1]; the fluctuation allows for the creation of particles on the basis of the uncertainty principal (the uncertainty principal meaning it's impossible to know exact position/momentum and energy/time simultaneously)[2] which could cause a set of particles to exit the vacuum effectively and literally creating something out of nothing.[1][2] Furthered by spontaneous parametric down conversion,[3] which is stimulated by vacuums and causes random proton creations. Electrons can disappear (cease to exist) and reappear (come into being) at any given, random point and time. Opponent uses the argument Ex nihilo nihil fit,[4] but only cherry picks the first half of the argument; the second half being that if there was absolute nothing and there was no such thing as existance, then logically it follows that nothing can stop something from happening. This as taught by Empedocles.[4] Second Premis: Relies on Something Changeless to Create a Change. Does this through A-Theory of time; that an absolute beginning/present moment exists. If there is however an absolute beginnning like my opponent maintains then his argument is in fact invalid; God cannot act before this “beginning”. Also it is impossible to have two events happening simultaneously, we know this through Einsteins Theory of Realitivity[5], and the Uncertianty principal[2]. Thus, the second premise is heavily negated. Scientifically, the general belief is in B-theory of time. The great thing about B-theory of time is that it holds that space is simply a 4 dimentional space time block that is finitley extended in the earlier direction. Thus, time is tenseless, and furthermore the universe never really comes into "being" as is implied in the KCA. This was even noted in WLC's book "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" pages 183-184. Which unlike WLC who ignores this for A time theory, Einsteins realitivity shows that time is in fact tenseless and not absolute, and the absolute simultanious occurance of events is impossible, demonstraiting empirrically that B theory of Time is more empirically accurate and in conflict with the Second Premis. It is also furthered by the law of conservation of mass. [5][8] This along with the fact that he cites the Vilenkin papers, which 1) never actually rule out Stephen Hawkings no boundry proposal, and 2) it suggests that a begining event to the expansion of the cosmos can be found, not that there was definatley a beginning to the universes formation.[6] In fact on the very papers my opponent cites, it also states: “What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. “ meaning the authors endorse the quantum neuclear theory, which means they have to believe that some form of quantum energy has existed eternally. Vilenkin goes on to say the following: “Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.” [6] Oh and for the record, none of those scientists believe in a God, meaning these papers have been clearly misrepresented, or at least is a good sign that they were cherry picked. The final Premise: Therefore a God Exists. Although because the basis of my opponents argument rests on the notion that P implies Q, and I have countered them then the conclusion is successfully refuted. And as previously noted, this argument was presented as an appeal to authority and is thus illegitimate. Furthermore, it is weak due to correlation not implying causation, and the suggestion of God is empirically unfalsifiable. Comrades! My opponents argument fails in the eye of compelling evidence. Let's see how he will recover. Over to you Vulpes! -Sources: http://www.debate.org...;