There Is an External Cause of the Universe

I'll leave the resolution issues aside (I'll refute those more specifically in my defense of my original arguments), and talk about sources before I begin. Regardless of whether or not my opponent realizes this, this is not a purely philosophical debate - science, and ergo empiricism need to be used from both sides in addition to just plain philosophical conjecture. An empirical argument is a probibilistic argument. My opponent accepted the BoP that he has to prove that an external cause created the universe, and empirical physics points showing how an acausal universe could work are not only relevant, but required. However, I'll leave this issue to the voters and let them decide on sources. Quantum FluctuationsBefore I begin with defending this argument specifically, I would like to say this - it is conceivably possible that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, but to extend that into the realm of probability would need experience of that. He's trying to jump from metaphysical possibility to physical possibility. It is possible that all but the universe just ended a second ago and my mind is just creating the illusion of the universe. Under the same reasoning that is infinitely possible. In other words, it is possible that there is an external cause to the universe, but one, that is only a metaphysical possibility, and two, my opponent provides no proof that an external cause of the universe is required at all - he simply hints at the possibility through metaphysical means. Anyway, on to defending my argument. As for what I'll call Last Thursdayism, his argument makes no empirical sense. To begin with, it is not falsifiable, "Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. .. Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. .. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. " My opponent's idea is not falsifiable, and also does not stand up to Occam's razor, and therefore should not be considered a valid objection to the quantum fluctuation theory. And second, it barely even has philosophical merit. A universe that was just created has a great possibility of unexisting. It also doesn't explain why there is evidence of a past to begin with without invoking a god, which my opponent is not. In other words, this is but a thought experiment and should not be used to determine the strength of the resolution. [1]On to the arguments directly related to quantum fluctuations. Going back to the singularity mentioned earlier, the universe could cause itself, meaning that the quantum vaccum and singularity are not "external" causes of the universe, but are instead an an example of an acausal universe: "Since there is a Big Bang singularity, the first interval of each length is "past-open," which means that there is no instant t that is the first instant of each earliest interval of any length, be the interval an hour, minute or second, etc. Before any instant in an earliest hour, minute, second, etc. , there is an infinite number of other instants. Formulated in terms of instantaneous states of the universe, this means that before each instantaneous state of the universe, there are other instantaneous states, and each instantaneous state of the universe is caused by earlier instantaneous states. Accordingly, the universe causes or explains itself in the sense that, even though it began a finite number of years ago, say 15 billion years, each instantaneous state in any earliest interval is caused to exist and hence explained by earlier instantaneous states. "[2]Again, if we accept the singularity theory - which my opponent makes no attempt to refute, relying instead on the argument that my arguments are unproven; however, I provided a number of sources showing their validity, and therefore negate the resolution that an external cause is necessary for the universe to exist - then causality couldn't exist. "The immediate era after the Planck time is one of pressures and densities so high that spacetime itself is folded and meshed into foam of mini-black holes and wormholes; although the Planck time marks the beginning of time in the universe, the convoluted nature of spacetime in this early phase, with numerous singularities and overlapping event horizons, amkes it impossible for matter, photons, or even causality to exist. " There could be no external cause because causality is not possible. [3]Further, "The singularity itself is also regarded in the GTR-based Big Bang theory as uncaused, although for a different reason. It is defined as a point beyond which space-time curves cannot be extended, and thus which cannot have causal antecedents. " As I mentioned in the last paragraph, during the Planck era, the convoluted nature of spacetime made causality impossible. [4][5]Finally all I said was that the argument has hard to comprehend for someone that is dependent on their everyday perception of what is possible and what is not without a conception of an alternate way to doing things. In much the same way that the heliocentric theory was called incorrect because it defied observation, so is this. And we do know this: "The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. " These fluctuations are uncaused, due to the nature of the quantum vacuum I just mentioned. "There is observational evidence, albeit indirect, that this uncaused emergence of energy or particles (notably virtual particles) frequently occurs. " The theories I presented are entirely plausible in the scope of our current scientific knowledge. While scientists don't claim to "know" anything, it is incredibly possible that the universe is acausal, and this negates pro's BoP sufficiently for him to lose the debate. [4][6]In conclusion to this argument, and acausal explanation of the universe is very plausible, and throws enough doubt in the debate to sufficiently negate the resolution and undermine pro's BoP. Acausal ExplanationsEkpyrotic Universe: "In respect of the theory of the acausal, the terms acausality and acausal refer to 'acausal space and acausal time'. That is, and in the context of this theory, both terms refer to a posited continuum different from the causal continuum of observed phenomena; which causal continuum has been described in terms of a four-dimensional space-time; and knowledge of and understanding about which causal continuum can be obtained by means of sciences such as physics, astronomy, and chemistry. " In other words, multi-dimensional space is acausal is we can establish an acausal explanation of the universe, which I did in the previous argument. [7]Retro and Simultaneous Causality: "'The idea of a physical system containing an explanation of itself might seem paradoxical to the layman but it is an idea that has some precedence in physics. While one may concede (ignoring quantum effects) that every event is contingent, and depends for its explanation on some other event, it need not follow that this series either continues endlessly, or ends in God. It may be closed into a loop. " Causality is not required for these explanations to take place. [8]ConclusionThe original objections I had to the resolution and its ambiguity were, in hindsight, not justified. In other words, the resolution was not as hard to negate as I ha originally been led to believe by pro. Pro had to prove that an external cause was necessary for the universe to exist, and he never attempted to prove the resolution, relying instead on invalid objections to empirical evidence and thought experiments with no inherent validity or relevance to actually proving the resolution. Not only has my opponent not met his burden of proof, he never effectively refuted any of my arguments because they still stand on possibility and empirical validity at the end of the day. I made these points:I. An external cause is not necessary to create a universe because of quantum fluctuations. II. An external cause is impossible because the singularities during that early universe made "external" causality impossible. III. An external cause is impossible because it would collapse quantum superpositins (by an external cause's nature). IV. There are alternative explanations for the universe's existence, such as the Ekpyrotic universe theory of simultaneous causation. My opponent never technically refuted any of these points, relying too much on philosophical conjecture and no empirical evidence (which is important) to make his argument. Here are the errors in his points:I. Thought experiments are not proof of something or something's existence, especially because they are not falsifiable. II. Empirical evidence is very important in a scientific debate. III. Common sense and ethics have no place in this debate because of the resolution. In conclusion, my opponent never proved his arguments, or refuted my own strong objections. Sources[1]: . http://www.princeton.edu...[2]: . http://infidels.org...[3]: . http://abyss.uoregon.edu...[4]: . http://infidels.org...[5]: . http://abyss.uoregon.edu...[6]: . http://pdg.web.cern.ch...[7]: . http://www.davidmyatt.ws...[8]: Davies, Paul. God and the New Physics.