God vs. Naturalism

R1. a. Requirement for Causation? Con argues that I made an incorrect assumption by claiming that he implied that causation can occur “only in the physical realm”. Did Con forget that in Round 2, he claimed that causation requires physical laws? Con argues that I introduced a new hypothesis that "there could be another form of timeliness prior to time itself". Don't penalize me for his misunderstanding. All that I argued that it "doesn't mean that the metaphysical realm couldn't have another form of timeliness." I didn't say that the metaphysical realm necessarily has another form of timeliness because that's a bare assertion and I don't claim such a thing. Con on the other had stated that before the universe "there [was] no time". This is a truth claim and Con has the BoP. Con argues that "a beginning without a cause is coherent". He makes me chuckle when he follows by saying that "As crazy as it may seem"! He's only helping my case! "Incoherent" means "expressed in a confusing way" [1]. Con argues that "an effect can occur without a cause". For evidence, he uses Filipenko and Pasachoff who say that "all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started." Do you not notice Con's error? The universe (effect) started because of tiny bit of energy (cause). Con then continues that "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or nothing at all. But this vacuum is "not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles" [2][3][4]. Nothing means "Not anything; no single thing" [5]. Con argues that "energy [before inflation] may have come out of nothing". He is utterly wrong. It came from energy and particles in the quantum field. Con argues that "Naturalism need not assert that the universe naturally begun' or unnaturally begun". I've shown before that science has shown that the universe actually began [6]. Naturalism actually cannot explain this beginning. This is a problem to the naturalist. Vilenkin, an agnostic, wrote about this: " With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" [7] Also, why would Lisa Grossman (Round 2) describe presenting this evidence in Hawking's 70th birthday as the worst birthday present? It's because it is a problem to the naturalist. b. Eternalism Con agrees that there are disagreements about this theory. Why should I uphold one claim over another? Let me add that this theory is based on Special Relativity (SR) as Con has shown. I've already shown scientists that not only disagree with Eternalism, but also believe that SR in fact disproves it (Round 3). Also many dispute SR itself [8][9]. Con shows Wüthrich defense of Eternalism which Con appears to have found in Wikipedia [10]. Yet, in the very next paragraph in Wikipedia, Dean Zimmerman states: "[When] appealing to findings from empirically well-grounded disciplines, philosophers face a strong temptation to overstate their case […] I fear that some B-theorists have succumbed to the temptation, […] the presentist’s conflict with either version of Relativity is shallow, since the presentist’s manifold can satisfy the same geometrical description as a B-theorist’s manifold, and afford explanations of all the same phenomena in precisely the same style. In these circumstances, how could appeal to SR or GR justify the frequent announcements that the A-theory–B-theory dispute has been “settled by physics, not philosophy”?" [10] —Dean Zimmerman, "Presentism and the Space-Time Manifold" in The Oxford Handbook of Time [10] That's the difference between me and Con. Con argues that Eternalism is true (almost like a doctrine), and I argue that there isn't enough evidence to compel me to take a side. But as I said previously, even if Eternalism is true, it doesn't undermine my case. What I find irresponsible is Con's claim that "Eternalism [is] true". He hinges the majority of his claim on this disputed theory. Con then argues that Eternalism doesn't render causation as incoherent. Con argues that "[evolution] only requires a directionality of change" Please examine the sentence carefully. Directionality of change is not change! Con states this clearly "evolution doesn't require change" So a directionality of change means that is appears to us that something is changing, but nothing is actually changing (because there is no time). How can a cause be coherent, if the effect already exists! Con then challenges my argument that "naturalism can hardly explain how this eternal universe exists (or came to existence)." What? How can Con say that it's not eternal? Isn't he the one who's claiming Eternalism? (See Rounds 2 and 4) But let's forgive him this error. The challenge remains: "Naturalism can hardly explain how this eternal universe exists (or came to existence)." Con argues that the zero-energy universe hypothesis allows for the universe to come into existence with no cause. This is the same argument that Lawrence Krauss was alluding to in his book which I discussed in detail above. There are quantum particles which consist of positive energy and negative gravitational energy that cancel each other out [11]. R2. Atemporal minds are impossible Con repeats his challenge that argues that I introduced a new hypothesis about timeliness. I've already addressed this above (See R1.a, 2nd paragraph). P3 states that "Processes are always temporal and require time." What if these processes are instantaneous? God may or may not need time. I don't know, and I don't really care. However, I have an issue with Con's truth claim stating that they are always temporal. The different is that I don't make an argument out of ignorance. Con's contention fails because his premises, especially P1, are not necessarily true. R3. Occam's razor I feel bad for Con. I've stabbed Con with his own contention over and over again. I've shown that many of Con's claims are ad hoc. Defense of my contentions 1.1 Pool table argument I am unhappy of Con's request to prove that there can't be an infinite number of past events. Why did he wait until now to challenge it? I specifically stated in R2 that "If he disagrees [then] I will show it in the next round." Now I am running out of space and will not provide a conclusion. Please don't penalizing me for this. Can there be an infinite number of past events? No. Infinity ∞ doesn't exist. It's only a potential abstract concept. Many make the mistake that it's a number [13]. Here are some peculiar properties of ∞: ∞ + 1 = ∞ ∞ x 7 = ∞ ∞ + ∞ = ∞ You can't say that ∞ = ∞, ∞ ≠ ∞ or ∞ > ∞! Past events are events that already occurred. David Hilbert explains this with Hilbert's paradox [14]. You will love the video! Imagine that there is a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. And every room was taken! Someone comes to the hotel and wants a new room. The owner will say "Yes of course!" How? Well, you ask the tenant of room 1 to go to room 2, 2 to 3...etc. Guess what! Room 1 is now vacant. If an infinite number of new tenants want to enter the hotel, they still can! You ask tenant of room 1 to go to room 2, 2 to 4, 3 to 6…etc. Now all even numbered rooms have been taken, and all odd numbered rooms are available (Infinite of them)! Basically, basic laws of math fail with infinities. Because infinities are potential values, but can never be achieved. No matter how much you add to a number, you will never reach infinity. Since past events actually occurred, then it's impossible that there is an infinite number of past events. Con argues that "an uncaused cause can behave in a predetermined way" What? If it's predetermined then it's caused. It's like saying "an unborn child could have been born!" This comment is simply and plainly wrong. Con argues that "[I beg] the question assuming there was nothing prior to this uncaused cause!" This is again simply and plainly wrong! It's uncaused, which means by definition that nothing prior to it caused it. 1.2 Corroborating Evidence Con says that I beg the question by stating that the universe either was caused or caused itself. He provides a third possibility that the universe existed without any influence. This is the same as "causing itself". 2.1 Fine Tuned Universe argument Con proposes Andre Linde's model as an explanation for naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning. However this model has several problems such as the use of large fields and that it doesn't fully reconcile with quantum theory [15]. My issue with Con's argument is that he's using vague theories and models as proofs. My argument stands. 2.2 Evolution Con stated that origin of life occurred through abiogenesis through autocatalysis. Richard Dawkins said that this is " the kind of thing that sounds promising as an ingredient for the origin of life" [16]. I've also shown in Round 2 how Dawkins didn't dismiss the possibility of other creatures designing the first replicating cell (See Round 2)! My issue with Con is that he again uses potential theories as facts which is irresponsible. Occam isn't be happy. Con argues that "DNA could have easily arisen by abiotic processes." Easily? One of Con's sources state "According to one version of the RNA world hypothesis, this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed" and that "it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts (ribose and nucleobases)" [17] I want to remind the reader and voter that you should presume that the likelihood of God's existence at the beginning of this debate is 50%, (not 100% if you're a theist and 0% if you are an atheist). I argue that my contentions show that the likelihood of God's existence is more likely than the null hypothesis. I want to thank Con for a very engaging debate. Sources in comments