God (Probably) Exists

Thanks, Con, for your response. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate as it has forced me to adopt and argue for unfamiliar positions, thus resulting in insightful discussions. Kalām Cosmological Argument RE: Beginning To Exist Con asks me for further clarification, writing: “All Pro does is present a short quote by William Lane Craig with no further elaboration on it at all.” However, I am not entirely sure why I have to further elaborate on it. I presented the accepted definition of “begin to exist” used within the KCA as formulated by Craig. Maybe further clarification is required. I presented to definition of “begin to exist” to show the minimum criterion that needs to be fulfilled in order for something to “begin to exist”, and thus refuting Con’s argument that after something began to exist, there is needs to be an increase in mass/energy. Con’s vision of how things “begin to exist” seems overly grounded on scientific grounds, rather than philosophical. As it would Con specifically requested so, I shall explain a tensed fact (although I’m not sure that it has anything to do with increases in mass/energy after something begins to exist). I will adapt my explanation from Craig. “In 2008, Barack Obama pledges to close the Guantanamo Bay prison centre”. This sentence is one that expresses a tenseless fact by the usage of a tenseless verb “pledges”, and thus will always be true. If one replaced “pledges” with “pledged” (a tensed verb), then we would know that it occurred in the past. However, the sentence would not always be true. In order for the sentence to be true, in let’s say, 2006, we would have to replace “pledges” with (the tensed) “will pledge”. In the words of Craig, “tensed sentences serve to locate things in time relative to the present and so may chance the truth value.” [1] Essentially, tenseless facts are facts that relate to the present, and thus facts that may change. Con dodges attempting to justify his previously unjustified assumption, by stating that it is supposedly “common sense”. RE. Cosmological Constant Con clarifies his argument, and renders my previous argument somewhat based on a straw-man invalid. Essentially, he is arguing that, due to the cosmological constant, there is no “true” nothingness in the universe, and thus we cannot use our observations to support Premise One. A few things to note. First, “nothing from nothing” is not reliant on this common experience argument in order for the principle to be true. Second, Con’s argument makes an unjustified assumption; namely that “in order for things to come into existence, they must come from *absolutely* nothing.” Again, I shall appeal to the definition of “begin to exist” in the KCA to show that this is not the case. I shall reiterate that, in order for something to “begin to exist” or “come into existence” it merely has to satisfy the criterion given in the definition. I also was not talking about virtual particles. I don’t know where Con got that from. RE. Metaphysical Intuitions Con objects to certain logic that I used. He argues,“my opponent has absolutely NO way of knowing this to be true…absolute nothingness has not ever been witnessed by humans…we can know nothing of its properties, much less what is possible within it.” Two things to note. First, it is absolutely irrelevant whether we have ever observed absolute nothing, as this has no bearing on whether we know anything about it. Con’s statements seem verificationist, which is discredited. Second, we do know that nothing has no properties, and that it has no potentiality by definition. Nothing is “a pronoun denoting the absence of anything.” [2] Thus, we would know that it has no properties, nor does it have potential. Hence, Con’s argument fails. Sub-Conclusion: Con’s criticisms of Premise 1 of the KCA fail. Thus, the Premise is affirmed, and the argument is sound. Fine-Tuning Argument RE. Physical Necessity Con argues that it is “plausible” that our physical laws are necessary, and offers it as an explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. In order to argue that they are “plausible”, he offers an analogy with the laws of mathematics, which supposedly couldn’t have been any different. However, maybe that isn’t the case. Mathematical laws are based on axioms, which are simply assumed to be true, rather than shown to be the case. According to Prof. David Kyle Johnson, “All mathematical systems are based on axioms – unproven, unprovable assumptions. …different assumptions will entail different things and produce different mathematical systems.” [3] Massimo Pigliucci writes, “Consider, for instance, Euclidean geometry, and in particular Pythagoras’ theorem. Is it “true”? I’m not even sure what that means, at this point (I used to think the answer was clearly yes, by the way). The Pythagorean theorem is “true” given the axioms of Euclidean geometry, but not “true” if we move to, say, spherical geometry.”[4] There are other reasons to believe that physical necessity is not as plausible as an explanation as Con thinks. This is because “necessary” physical laws are not predicted by any accepted nor proposed physical theory. John Archibald Wheeler states: “Never has physics come up with a way to tell with what initial conditions the universe was started off. On nothing is physics clearer than what is not physics: equation of motion, yes; initial position and velocity of the object which follows that equation of motion, no.” [5] M-Theory and String theory is also unimpressive in the same regard. According to Stephen Hawking, “Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four-dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of physics. Most physicists would rather believe that string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe is prescribed by an outside agency, code named GOD. Or that there are many universes, and that our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle.” [6] Although it is certainly possible that the laws of nature are the way they are due to physical necessity, there is no plausible reasons to believe that is the case. Current physical theories have been unsuccessful in predicting such laws, and there are no good reasons why this will change. RE. Multiverse Theory Con then argues that multiverse theory, where there perhaps is an infinite number of universes, provides an adequate explanation of fine-tuning. He argues for the existence of the multiverse from inflation. Con provides evidence, based on the discovery of gravitational waves, suggesting that inflation occurred. Before I go any further, I shall reiterate that this is the “first direct evidence of cosmic inflation”. Other than this discovery of gravitational waves, there is no direct evidence of inflation. Of course, it could be argued that inflationary cosmology solves a variety of problems in cosmology. Yet, there are still a variety of discrepancies within inflation that are unaccounted for. Paul Steinhardt lists 3 in his article “The Inflation Debate.” According to Steinhardt, “inflation was supposed to create a huge volume of space matching the observed large-scale features of our universe naturally. But unless the inflation energy curve had a very specific shape, the outcome would be “bad”-a huge volume with too high a density and wrong distributions of galaxies. Given the range of possible values [of the parameters], bad inflation seems more likely.” [7] To restate, “bad” inflation does not account for galaxy density, but is far more likely than “good” inflation, which does. Con cites the “findings” of gravitational waves as evidence of the inflationary paradigm, hence, multiverses. There are two things to note. Firstly, the evidence of such gravitational waves have not been independently confirmed by other research groups, so all we have as evidence of gravitational waves come from one research group, in one location. The “evidence” would be far stronger if other research groups were also able to detect such gravitational waves. However, they have not. Second, doubt about the detection of gravitational waves, have, in the words of Scientific American, been “growing.” Ron Cowen writes: “two independent analyses now suggest that those twisting patterns in the CMB polarization could just as easily be accounted for by dust in the Milky Way Galaxy.” According to physicist Uros Seljak, “based on what we know right now…we have no evidence for or against gravitational waves.” [8] Thus, the “evidence” of the multiverse, from inflation; from gravitational waves is very dubious, and open to debate. Sub-Conclusion 2: Both of Con’s arguments; one from physical necessity, and the other from multiverse theory fail to act as a good explanation of fine-tuning. Conclusion: All of Con’s arguments against the KCA and the Fine-tuning argument ultimately fail. His arguments against the KCA make dubious assumptions or are misguided, and his arguments against the fine-tuning argument are unconvincing. Evidence of a multiverse is debatable, and his argument from physical necessity does not stand up to scrutiny. In order for Pro fulfil his BOP, he only needs to provide 1 successful argument for God’s existence. Right now, I believe that I have presented 2. In order for Con to win this debate, he must successfully refute both arguments. I believe that he has not done so. Thus, vote PRO. [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Exploring Metaphysics Guidebook by David Kyle Johnson; Lecture 1 [4] http://is.gd... [5] http://is.gd... [6] http://is.gd... [7] http://www.physics.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.nature.com...