God vs. Naturalism

I have never seen one like it before. Rebuttal R1. A caused universe is incoherent? a. Requirement for Causation? My opponent argues that any cause must go through some type of 'process' which requires time. He argues that before the universe began, there was no time and physical laws; and therefore he concludes that the universe simply could not have been caused, because there was no time. There are several problems with my opponent's argument. First, my opponent assumes that causation can only occur in the physical realm, and couldn't possibly occur in the metaphysical realm. There's no reason to assume this bare assertion as true. I agree that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang [1], but that doesn't mean that the metaphysical realm couldn't have another form of timeliness (which may or may not be tenseless). Second, logically speaking, a beginning without a cause is incoherent, and not the opposite. For something to simply begin by itself, for no purpose, yet at the same is very sophisticated… this would be more absurd and illogical that any other hypothesis that suggests causation. Third, this argument hardly supports naturalism! Why? As my opponent stated previously, natural processes require time. Because there was no time before the universe, the universe couldn't have naturally begun. This poses a problem to that naturalist, not the theist! It goes like this: P1: The universe couldn't have naturally begun. (Because there was no time before it) P2: The universe begun. (Big Bang) C1: The universe must have begun supernaturally (or unnaturally) It looks like you scored on your own goal! b. Eternalism Eternalism is a philosophical theory that argues that there is no past, present or future; they are all equally true. It's very similar to a movie, and we are watching different frames. Someone could be watching the last scene, and I could still be reading the FBI warnings. My opponent is arguing that Eternalism proves that causation is incoherent. Again, there are several problems with my opponent's argument. First, my opponent is suggesting that Eternalism is true because special relativity appears to be incompatible with Presentism. However, this claims has been disputed [3][4]. Someone even argued that Einstein's theory of relativity actually refutes Eternalism! [5] Second, if Eternalism is true, then all causation (not just the beginning of the universe) is incoherent. This means that there is no cause and effect. It means that evolution is not true, because all creatures simply "exist", including the dinosaurs… there's no gradual process. Eternalism also suggests that the very well known, proven and tested theory that "every action has a reaction" is not true either. I find this unreasonable! Why? To deny scientific facts for the purpose of proving a philosophical claim is unreasonable, ad hoc and doesn't follow the principle of parsimony. Third, even if Eternalism were true, naturalism can hardly explain how this eternal universe exists (or came to existence). Proponents of Eternalism argue that the universe is just "there", was always "there" and will always be "there". Just like a movie, you can reverse and forward all you want, but the movie itself never changes. But this begs the question: What made this movie? Who were the directors, producers and crew? Why is it just simply there? And why is it this special way? Naturalism can't answer these questions. It just asserts that it's there! Naturalism fails to answer these valid question. However, this is not incompatible with the God hypothesis, because there is no reason to claim that God couldn't have created a universe of this type. So again, this is a problem for that naturalist, not the theist. I have other objections, but I think I've done enough! R2. Argument from Atemporal Minds This is a very clever argument, but it's fallacious. Let me explain! My opponent is arguing that because God is outside of this universe, the He is timeless. But this doesn't mean that God is static. If God were static, we wouldn't have this debate in the first place! God is outside the time and space of this universe. But this doesn't mean that there isn't another type of time (specifically space-time) in the metaphysical realm that could be either tenseless or non-tenseless. So your first premise P1 is false. (Sorry! ) P3 is also wrong. There's no reason not to believe that God can make decisions instantaneously and doesn't require time to think or process them. I ask the reader to dismiss this argument altogether. R3. Law (Principle) of Parsimony and Ad hoc Hypothesis I don't disagree with these laws in principal! But I think my opponent is misunderstanding them. Before I continue, I want to highlight a little mistake by my opponent. He stated that "a caused universe have to be refuted only by the addition of ad hoc hypothesis. " This is incorrect. An ad hoc statement would make an argument less likely, but doesn't necessarily refute it. But this is irrelevant, because none of my claims are ad hoc. First, the principle of parsimony is completely misstated. "[Principle of parsimony] appears to be based in the notion that, when there are several competing theories, ‘the simplest is always most likely to be the correct one'. However, this sound-bite version of the principle is not entirely correct and was not what Occam actually proposed at all. Simple ideas can be quite wrong and relatively complicated ideas are more than capable of being correct. […]In contrast to popular opinion, at no point did Occam ever state that the simpler explanation is always more correct or that the more complex explanation is always less correct. " [6] So what did Occam mean then? He argued that the best way to evaluate a theory "is to start from the simplest possible explanation and make it more complex only if, and when, absolutely necessary. " [6] Let me admit, that many theists make this mistake and whenever they find something they don't understand, they plug God into it. This is called the well known "God of the Gaps" fallacy [7]. These instances clearly violate the law of parsimony and are ad hoc. However, none of my claims were as such. They were all logical, rational and reasonably conclude that God is the best explanation given all the data available. I also want to add that none of my claims are ad hoc! I didn't stick the God hypothesis in any of my arguments to rescue it! I ask the reader to dismiss this argument altogether. Conclusion I have to admit that I liked my opponent's arguments, but I argue that they fall short of showing how naturalism is more likely than the God hypothesis. Thank you. [1] . http://www.hawking.org.uk... [2] . http://reducing-suffering.org... [3] . http://philoscience.unibe.ch... [4] . http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu... [5] . http://www.soulphysics.org... [6] . http://www.academia.edu... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...