God vs. Naturalism

http://www.youtube.com... I shall defend my arguments in the next round and instead only rebut Pro’s case in this round. R1) An initial being exists a) “Pool table” argument The pool table argument merely leads to a conclusion that there was an “uncaused cause”, which is justified by Premise B, wherein there is a “finite number of past causes”, justified simply by the fact that there is a finite number of past events. This brings in the seemingly intuitive assumption that every event has a cause. The derivation is from the axioms of Parmenides and Empedocles, who state “ex nihilo nihil fit”, i.e. “out of nothing, nothing comes.” [1] One may argue this is supported by the conservation of mass/energy, but this brings the obvious question -- caused what? There is an uncaused cause of what? Since the definition of God is a being that created the *universe*, there is the assumption that the universe was ‘caused’ into existence. This cosmology was used in an attempt to demonstrate God’s existence by Aristotle in his Physics and Metaphysics, using a formulation of Plato’s initial thought to create an argument from cosmology for the existence of a primal mover [2]. Philosopher, mystic, and theologian al-Ghazali used a derivative of philosophical cosmology with theological principles of orthodox Islamic kalam theology and Sufism to form an argument against the metaphysical possibility of actual infinities, that was adapted by apologist W.L. Craig to form the kalam cosmological argument [3]. Modern physics and naturalism seems to refute this ‘causal premise’ that seems to be the core of a variety of deductive cosmological arguments, such as Craig’s. As Hume argued, there is no reason to think the causal principle is true a priori [4], and quantum mechanics brings in a posteriori evidence to the contrary. Acausal explanations for the origin of the universe, according to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, are likely true if the sum of net energy in the universe is precisely zero, which would be determined if the curvature of the universe is flat [5]. According to measurements by the NASA spacecraft WMAP, we now know “that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.” [6] If the universe’s curvature is flat, the sum of net energy in the universe would be precisely zero, and there is a 99.6% chance that this is true. “If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the Earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the Earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the Earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater (in magnitude) than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can.” [7] Next, I attack proposition 2: “an uncaused cause must have free will.” Why can’t an uncaused cause be a resul of random reactions? This is a bare assertion, thus is logically fallacious. Thus, the “pool table” argument is refuted. b) Corroborating evidence This argument is based on misconceptions of physical laws and propositions. I shall address them by quoting my opponent and then responding. First, my opponent repeatedly confuses the universe having a beginning with having a cause. For something to have a beginning in time, it does not need to have a cause. Take the example of a quantum fluctuation, where a particle and its corresponding antiparticle emerge from the quantum vacuum and annihilate to release energy without a finite cause [8]. Pro argues that the BGV theorem predicts the universe had a cause. This is based on a classical interpretation of spacetime and the assumption of the A-series of time and a presentism ontology to be true. The latter is highly unlikely in light of special relativity, which uses the relativity of simultaneity to predict the B-series of time and eternalism [9]. R2) Intelligent Design a) Fine-tuned universe This variation of the teleological argument is referred to as the ‘fine-tuning’ argument, i.e. the idea that the universe is unique in that it is a universe fine-tuned for life, with the physical constant values of the universe [10]. According to philosopher Theodore M. Drange, “Other values for physical constants [are] highly improbable. … [T]he burden of proof is still on the advocates of FTA [to show that other values for physical constants are possible].” [11] Furthermore, “[Michael Hurben and Theodore Drange] have offered various objections to this new argument to design: that the values of the various physical constants aren't really ‘tunable’ and thus couldn't have been ‘set’ to anything other than the values we find.” [12] According to particle physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger, “[I]t can be shown that the conditions necessary for the evolution of some form of life would have arisen from a wide variation in physical constants.” [13] While I do not outright reject the fine-tuned universe hypothesis, as Drange poses, how is it possible for the universe to have been ‘tuned’ otherwise? Stenger also posits that our ‘type’ of life, i.e. carbon-based life, need not be the only type of life possible [14]. According to inflationary theory, “an inflaton field in the first 10−30 seconds of the universe produces strong repulsive gravity, and the universe and space-time expand by a factor of 1030. After 10−30 seconds, gravity starts to become attractive. In this framework, with such rapid expansion, the overall shape of the universe at 14 billion years is much less sensitive to initial parameters … thus, the fine-tuning issue disappears.” [15] Andre Linde proposed a theory of ‘chaotic inflation’, “the peaks in the evolution of a scalar field (determining the energy of the vacuum) correspond to regions of rapid inflation which dominate.” [16] This theory of eternal inflation was proven by Paul Steinhardt and Alexander Vilenkin independently, and further supported by Alan Guth [17]. This allows for a wholly naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning [18]. Stephen Hawking proposed that the early universe was a superposition of possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today, thus providing a further naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning [19]. Therefore, physical necessity has equal probability as intelligent design, and the argument does not affirm God’s existence. Thus, the teleological argument is refuted. b) Evolution For this, I need only defend that life could have originally arisen via. abiogenesis. Before the question of did life originally arise via. abiogenesis, I need answer the question why. Life is thermodynamically inevitable. If life on Earth did not form, the Earth’s environment would have been under ‘thermodynamic stress’. The atmosphere was thick in cyanides, methane, CO2, ammonia, and other gases, and was under concentrated ultraviolet radiation trapping it in heat [19]. Life was just a group of chemical compounds created to relieve thermodynamic stress on Earth by moving it to a higher-entropy state, thus scattering energy-dense particles, e.g. oxygen generation via. photosynthesis and the evolution of chlorophyll would have prevented much greater levels of ultraviolet energy density, thus scattering particles of energy and rising the level of entropy in the thermodynamic system further [20]. Life is a self-propagating process of a thermodynamic system, basically using cell division to increase level of entropy in organisms, which are merely thermodynamic systems, e.g. process of ‘food’ to scatter energy via. heat release and mitosis. Because the system is autocatalytic, if all other factors are irrelevant then the system will continue to multiply at an exponential rate. Thus, via. autocatalysis, constant replication can emerge from non-living nature. Nucleotides and amino acids can be synthesized via. simple chemical combination and bonding. This is via. autocatalysis in itself. As seen in the Miller-Urey experiment, amino acids can be synthesized by inorganic compounds in conditions very similar to the early Earth itself [21]. Thus, life could arise out of abiogenesis. The resolution is negated. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. Ibid. 4. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 5. See Lawrence Krauss lecture video, starting at 11:56. 6. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... 7. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. p. 180. 8. http://aether.lbl.gov... 9. http://bit.ly... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://infidels.org... 12. http://infidels.org... 13. http://www.colorado.edu... 13. http://goo.gl... 14. Source 10. 15. http://en.wikipedia.org... 16. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 17. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 18. http://en.wikipedia.org... 19. http://link.springer.com... 20. Ibid. 21. http://link.springer.com...;