Theism (Pro) vs. Naturalism (Con)

keller, Wylted, Fkkize, and Tejretics for contributing to this debate. I am only going to present one argument, but don’t worry because I’m going in-depth with arguing for this one. The Cosmological Argument What I'm going to try to show in this argument that the universe couldn't have had a creator. I argue that we can come to this conclusion by the nature of the universe itself and by the nature of the proposed creator. P1: If God exists, then the universe was created. P2: The universe wasn’t created. C: God doesn’t exist. Premise one is clear, God is defined as the creator of the universe. If the universe couldn’t have been created, then God doesn’t exist. I will now give 4 reasons to accept the truth of premise 2. The Universe Causality In order to be the creator of the universe one must exist prior -I mean prior in some reference point, allowing for relativity and retrocausality- to the universe. For example, I didn't create the universe because the universe existed prior to myself. Nor could I have created something if I existed at the same time with it. If I was an eternal being I couldn't have caused something else that was eternal, because there would be no time where that entity didn't exist therefore there couldn’t have been any time for me to bring that entity into existence. What I am saying here is we must investigate whether it makes sense to say that one can be prior to the universe. If we are to assume that time didn't have a beginning then we couldn't claim that there is a creator because the universe could have always existed (and P2 is affirmed). However does a beginning of time really makes sense? In order to cause something one must have to exist prior to it, but prior is a temporal concept. So without time there can be no prior and without time there can be no cause. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to claim that anything could have caused the universe because causes are temporal. Of course many are tempted here to appeal to simultaneous causation. But, there are two distinct concepts of simultaneous causation. One being that something simultaneously causing something timelessly. For example, a ball resting on a sheet for all of eternity, the cause and effect exist at the same time. The problem here is quite clear, it doesn't deal with an entity bringing another entity into existence. Just how an entity can depend on another. The second concept is simultaneous in the temporal sense. This makes no sense either because simultaneous is a temporal concept. It would presume facts about time to explain facts about time. Furthermore, even if SC made sense, why should we prefer a theistic concept of it? It is simpler to cut God out of it and claim simultaneous causation in a self-contained sense. Particle A causes particle B at the same time as particle B causes particle A. Time According to modern science it doesn't appear that the universe could have been caused. Quantum physics and special relativity implies a theory of time called Eternalism. This is a theory of time where all states of time have existed eternally [1]. As arguably the most famous contemporary Christian philosopher William Lane Craig puts it “On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived. ” [2] Basically, eternalism claims that all states of time exist. The future and past exist just as must as the present exists. Time would be analogous to space, the past would be before this moment and the future would be after this moment. When thinking about the “beginning” of the universe, the big bang would’ve been inch one on a ruler, not the cause of the ruler. Or like a movie reel, the reel itself doesn’t begin to exist when the intro of the movie starts. This theory is confirmed by equations in special relativity, as time can dilate depending on how fast you are moving or how close you are to a gravitational body [3]. Time dilation has been observed in Muons, when they are moving time slows for them relative to our clocks on Earth [4]. Quantum entanglement has also shown to be able to entangle particles throughout time [5]. An even more mind bending experiment shows that time is emergent from the universe. A “God-like” observer would view all states of time [6][7]. Therefore, there can be no creator of the universe, because all states of time exist eternally. The Creator There are two other reasons to believe that there can be no creator of the universe, because the very nature of the creator contradicts this notion. I believe this is only the third time I’ve presented this argument. This argument is somewhat original, it borrows some of its concepts from Prof. David Kyle Johnson’s explanation of the foreknowledge/free will problem and I have reformulated it to work as an argument against God’s existence. Omniscience God has all knowledge. He has total knowledge of the past, present and future. From this we can conclude that these states of time exist. Why? Because in order to know something, that thing must exist. It is impossible for the opposite to be true. I cannot know something that doesn’t exist. For example, I can’t know that Jerry Fodor was president, because such a thing is false. Although what “knowledge” actually is has spawned debate among philosophers, it is clear that it must contain true belief. If I believed something false, then I would be wrong. Just like if God knew the future when it doesn’t exist, then he would be wrong because nothing makes his knowledge true. Something must exist which makes God’s knowledge true. What could do this? The only candidate there can be is the future event itself. How else can we link the event to God’s knowledge? This entails that the past, present and future must exist. We now see that this entails an eternalist ontology of time. Before the universe, God knew all and therefore knew the future. This is a contradiction, because before the universe, the future of it must have already existed. Therefore, there couldn’t have been a “before” the universe. Therefore, the second premise is vindicated. Action If God is to be a cause of time, he must be timeless. However, there is a serious problem with God being timeless and interacting with temporal events. We can think of God’s existence in terms of numbers. A number like “1” can be thought of as spaceless and timeless. It makes no sense to claim the number “1” doesn’t exist in the Andromeda galaxy, nor does it make sense to claim the number “1” came into existence a few years ago. To understand the nature of a timeless and spaceless entity we can inspect the nature of numbers. We quickly see that numbers cannot cause anything within time. If I eat one pie, the number “1” doesn't cause me to eat the pie. When going 10mph, the number 10 isn’t causing my speed. Numbers are always the same, regardless if I eat one pie or am stationary. It isn’t different before or after these events and therefore cannot explain these events. To cause something, one must act at the right time. However, since God, like numbers is always the same before and after events, he cannot exert any force to cause something at the right time. Preventing him from being a creator of time or events within time. Conclusion My argument above presents a powerful argument against theism. Looking at this from an abductive standpoint, we can tie this up and show why theism is unlikely and why my position is more likely. Abductive reasoning is inference to the best explanation usually following the 5 criteria of testability (Can x be tested? ), fruitfulness (Does x pass such tests? ), scope (How much can x explain? Does it answer more questions than it raises? ) , simplicity (Does x have as few assumptions as possible), and conservatism (Does x fit with our background knowledge? ) [9]. Testability and fruitfulness God clearly cannot be tested as he falls outside the realm of testable physical entities. This makes it a little harder to accept, but maybe not too much as one possibly could argue for philosophical testability and fruitfulness. Which is a part of what this debate is about. Scope God is invoked to answer questions about the universe, but it does raise many more questions. What is the nature of God? How can we know the nature of God? Why does God do what he does? What concept of God is correct? Does he care about us? Why should he care about us? How can temporal, spatial beings understand the nature of God? How did God create the universe? Just look at the nature of Theology to see how many questions have been spawned and the debate among theologians. Proposing an amazing complex being presents so many questions. It is much like proposing a bridge collapse can be explained by an incomprehensible being using an incomprehensible force to collapse the bridge. The naturalistic explanations I have proposed don’t raise as many questions as God does. Simplicity If we are to accept the existence of God, we must accept that there is another realm of being outside of what we already know. It has to adopt unnecessary ways of explaining the beginning of the universe which can already be explained without appealing to another realm of being. Conservatism As shown above, the nature of God contradicts what we think about causality and physics. The claim that God exists runs contrary to our abductive reasoning. We can then infer that God is likely nonexistent. Thanks. Sources . http://www.debate.org...