The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1K

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. "I ask of my opponent...does he want to defend Hume?" My objective in bringing up Hume and Mackie was to point out that even opponents to the justification of the causal principle were quoted as admitting to the causal principle as being rational and practically useful. The fact that such great thinkers could oppose its legitimacy yet be forced to accept its rational necessity favors my cause. Citing these men was done to reinforce the futility in denying the causal principle. Indeed, Hume's work in general was skeptical and would be more in line with my opponent's thinking, so I do not wish to leap into that rabbit hole. "In what way does reflecting on the fields of science reveal the absurdness of something coming out of nothing, as it is referred?" Reflecting on the fields of science is to analyze our human experience and determine whether or not our theories are reflected in that experience. My opponent says there doesn't seem to be any fundamental scientific principle that refutes the causal principle, which is exactly what I said. However, to say that the principle is unfounded is refuted by direct observational evidence of human experience. Scientists use the causal principle to guide their research with remarkable effectiveness. In science, to say that something is uncaused is to be done with science. If there is no cause, then there is nothing left to test or explore. The absurdity, therefore, is manifested when one selectively chooses to deny the casual principle when it is most convenient. Certainly my opponent would not stand for it if I were to conveniently deny the causal principle when arguing for miracles. He would insist there being a cause of such extraordinary claims. That is the real point I am making, here. The causal principle is consistently verified and appealed to in our daily experience. "There doesn't seem to be any fundamental scientific principle barring this from happening, especially since there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum -- aka 'nothing' -- to begin with" How does he know this? According to his source, "In modern physics, there is no such thing as 'nothing.'" Of course not. How can modern physics, which are bound by physical laws, describe something without physical laws? So, it's not that a perfect vacuum doesn't exist; it's merely that such a thing is not discoverable via scientific method. So, this really isn't an argument against creation ex nihilo. Really, it's a semantical argument over the meaning of "nothing." "This problem stands in stark contrast with your causal principle; that things can have simply always existed or come out of 'nothing'." But this is never observed. Even our quantum observations show that the effects have a cause. This is the point of this premise. The only possible example of something being uncaused, that my opponent can think of, is matter. But that begs the question. Whether or not space-time is caused is what we are debating. My opponent is reasoning in a circle. He refutes P1 by assuming P2 as improbable. I challenged my opponent to present an observable and defensible exception to the causal principle. The issue of matter and time are not observable, are contingent upon this debate, and are therefore wholly inadequate. My opponent can say the causal principle is incoherent all day long, but his inability to present an observable exception speaks with much greater authority. P2. The universe began to exist. My opponent seems to cling to the idea that alternative cosmological theories constitute adequate refutation of this premise. It is non sequitur to claim that just because one can conceive something doesn't mean it's true. Indeed, my opponent would never grant me such a luxury. This is really the opposite of argument from ignorance. It is fundamentally fallacious to argue that simply because he can conceive infinite time, it does not follow that the universe is timeless. He must SHOW why a timeless universe is more probable than not. My opponent points out that my cited physicist, Alan Guth, had his own theory of cosmology. Thank you! That is PRECISELY why I cited him. It was several years FOLLOWING this theory that he worked with other physicists--who had their own infinite universe theories--to develop a theory that debunks their past work! Guth, Borde, and Vilenken's 2003 theory shows that ANY expanding universe--including Guth's inflationary universe--must have a singularity. I want the readers to pay close attention. TheSkeptic calls Guth's inflationary universe model "well supported" and that, in general, the physicists I've cited have proposed "very compelling" cosmological models. Yet, I have shown that these SAME men have shown those very SAME models to be neither supportable nor compelling. My opponent, therefore, is offering little more than hot air when he states that "ultimately they give convincing models without a theistic element." If the authors of these theories are not convinced, then on what basis does TheSkeptic find them convincing in general? TheSkeptic's introduction of the B-Theory of time is interesting, to say the least, but is ultimately a red herring. As we've discussed up to this point, regardless of how you conceptualize time, the fact remains that the universe has a singularity. Discussion of B-Theory constitutes a bait-and-switch tactic in which he shows CONCEPTUALIZED time as being actually infinite whereas science has indisputably shown DIMENSIONAL time as finite. [1] The reason so many physicists have endeavored to eliminate the singularity altogether is because it implies that both space and time have a beginning. Just so I am not accused of glossing over the issue, I will discuss B-theory a bit. The idea behind B-theory, essentially, is that all events--past, present, and future--already exist. What we call cause and effect is simply a matter of linguistics. Given that events simply exist, it is conceivable that there are an actual infinite number of events. However, this theory does not solve the logical problem of an actual infinite number of things. According to B-theory, events are actual entities. They really exist. Therefore, B-Theory still suffers from Hilbert's Grand Hotel paradox; you cannot have an actual infinite number of real things. You see, my opponent is trying to discount the actual infinity problem by conceptualizing it away. Yes, mathematically, there can be actual infinite sets. Yes, conceptually, there can be actual infinite events. However, this does not refute the impossibility of a realized actual infinity. My opponent has offered weak alternative theories and possibilities, but nothing to tie those alternatives closer to reality. My opponent must do more than to say, "The universe doesn't NEED a beginning." That is not what is at debate here. The question is, "Does the universe HAVE a beginning?" I have offered plenty of scientific evidence to rationally accept that it does. CONCLUSION I have shown real cosmological theories and the more recent theories that refute them. I've argued that cause and effect are observed and used in practical everyday science. My opponent, on the other hand, offers plenty of alternatives that are conceptual, but not applicable. My opponent has chosen to allow my other points (P3 and P4) to go unanswered for now. I will extend them as is in the event he wishes to address them. However, I submit that if he does not, then any reader that finds my defense of P1 and P2 adequate should consider my remaining points valid as well. TheSkeptic, as always, is a worthy challenger. I look forward to our final round and the discussion our debate will inevitably generate. SOURCES 1. http://www.big-bang-theory.com...