If The Universe Has A Cause, That Cause Is A Personal Mind

-Introduction- I thank Philochristos for his thoughtful responses; I knew this debate would be interesting. In this round I am going to show why my opponent's three arguments still do not justify the resolution. -Response To My Opponent- Just to make things clear, I have never once in this debate argued that an impersonal cause of the universe is to be preferred when compared to a personal cause. I have only argued that Pro's case doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny; which is all I needed to do according to the debate outline: "It will be Pro's job to show that this cause is a personal mind, and my job to show why Pro's reasoning doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny." Pro has the burden of proof in this debate according to the rules I erected. Ergo, I need not argue for an impersonal cause of the universe. Philochristos provides an example with the car and gas to show the absurdity of accepting necessary causation without sufficient causation as an explanation just because it is merely possible. However, it is only absurd in such a situation because we are dealing with macroscopic things and events. Since the initial Big Bang state was of sub-atomic size (not a macroscopic thing) then the analogy my opponent provides simply misses the mark. What quantum mechanics shows is that things and events at the very small scale don't have a sufficient cause much of the time. Therefore, ironically, it is Pro's analogy that fails, not mine, because what we would expect macroscopically breaks down when discussing the extremely small. My opponent says that quantum events entail creation ex-materia while the universe entails creation ex-nihilo. First off, quantum events do not necessarily entail creation ex-materia. The universe could have came from a timeless, spaceless, immaterial geometry (like in Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model [1]). Certain laws of physics only deal with what could potentially happen physically; not what is the case physically. This means that states describable by the laws of physics could exist without anything physical. Therefore, there is nothing about the laws of physics that makes it necessary that a quantum event like quantum tunneling needs prior space or energy (quantum fluctuations do require space however). Also, Pro has not shown that the universe didn't come from a field of proto-material (which is not yet material, but becomes energy and elementary particles). So the claim that the universe began ex-nihilo is unjustified. It is also claimed by my opponent that if we accept unnecessary conditions without sufficient conditions as likely explanations then we could explain anything like that. I already refuted this notion because looking for sufficient causes only seems valid at the macroscopic scale (the initial Big Bang state was not a macroscopic object). It is the said by my opponent that the creation of virtual particles within the universe is not analogous to the creation of matter, space, time and energy as a whole; as it only pertains to within the universe. If Pro is to be consistent with his logic then he must also say that that the creation of energy he mentioned with regards to the interaction problem only happens within the universe, and is not analogous to the creation of matter, space, time and energy as a whole. His statement actually renders his third argument useless. Philochristos then says that quantum events have physical necessary conditions while the beginning of the universe couldn't have, so, there are more disanalogies on my part. The problem is that quantum tunneling models of the universe don't require anything physical prior to creation. Pro also states that I have not given a candidate as to what the spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and impersonal necessary cause could be. This is false. Here is a section of my last round: "...all you need is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial zero energy geometry describable by a law allowing the spontaneous nucleation of the universe and there you go; no personal mind required..." Also, once more, I have only undermined Pro's case instead of arguing for an impersonal cause as that is all my job is with regards to this debate based on the outlined rules. Now, Pro says we should already favour a personal cause because it entails sufficient conditions. Most causes entail sufficient conditions so this is a more likely explanation for a thing. However, once again, we only expect sufficient causes when it comes to macroscopic things, and the initial Big Bang condition was not a macroscopic object. Thus, this line of reasoning still fails. We know that things happen randomly and spontaneously at the sub-atomic scale (radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, quantum tunneling etc.). The Big Bang was an extremely counter-intuitive event and it involved the coming into being of an initial state that was extremely small in size. Not even a probability argument can get off the ground in favour of sufficient causality here. Additonally, my opponent seems to misrepresent my stance. I never claimed that the universe may have began to exist ex-materia instead of ex-nihilo. I said the universe may have came from something else that is not the universe; the two statements are not equivalent. Perhaps a field of proto-material is what the universe came from (we only know material things need material causes based on observation of material things already existing, this need not apply to the first material thing), or a zero energy geometry state like in Alexander Vilenkin's model. With regards to a the zero energy universe I never implied the universe had zero energy, just that the universe could have came from a zero energy state as the total energy of the universe equals zero. All we need is a zero energy state which is unstable (which means it must "split" and start the universe) then the positive and negative energy comes into being. So this is an alternative explanation (one that many physicists adhere to, but one that could also be adhered to outside the scope of physics) contrary to what my opponent believes. -Conclusion- Pro concedes that I undermined his first two arguments enough to the point that he had to retreat into probabilistic arguments in order for them to work. His idea is that sufficient causation applies to almost everything so it is more likely. I showed this reasoning fails as we only expect sufficient causation pertaining to macroscopic things (the initial Big Bang state was not a macroscopic thing, as macroscopic objects only began after cosmic inflation). Philochristos' third argument is that a mind is the only thing we know of that creates ex-nihilo, and since the universe began ex-nihilo, then a mind is the best explanation. This argument takes a huge blow based on his own reasoning. He claims something happening within the universe is not analogous to matter, space, time and energy coming into being as a whole. This means that just because minds can create bits of energy in within the universe, that doesn't mean such a thing is analogous to creating a whole universe. Also, his claim that the universe began ex nihilo hasn't been supported (I provided other alternatives) so, the third argument from my opponent doesn't succeed either. Since my burden in this debate was to show why Pro's arguments do not stand up to critical scrutiny, and I accomplished that task; one must simply be compelled to vote Con. -Additional Comments- I am humbled by Philochristos' comments in his last round. The reason I wanted to debate him is because I knew he would be a formidable opponent and I have much respect for his intellect as well. Philochristos, I would like to discuss certain subjects with you such as the interaction problem and Idealism. So I am asking if you would be willing to temporarily leave your inbox open so this can happen. Just let me know. -Source- [1] http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org...