The Cosmological argument is evidence for a God.

"Let me be a little clearer. I was pressed for time, and I meant not to define God creator of the universe, but the creator of the universe as God. Think about that for a second. Whatever created the universe, call it God." This is not the definition of God supplied in the opening round. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in agreeing to participate in this debate, you agreed to argue for the God I defined. Isn't this why you tried to argue that the universe was self aware in the opening round? Sure, there are many definitions of what 'God' is, but I am arguing over whether a certain type of God exists. Hence, arguing that the universe has a cause isn't enough; the cause has to be shown to be self aware, supernatural, and capable of performing miracles. "THIS is the argument, 1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The Universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause" This form of the cosmological argument is known as the Kalam argument. Both premises (1) and (2) can be argued against. First, premise (2), "The universe began to exist", assumes something about the nature of time. The term, "began to exist", in the usual sense means that it once didn't exist, and then did, or: 2'. If x began to exist, then there is a time t at which it does exist, and a time prior to t at which it does not. So, to say that the universe began to exist assumes that time passes, that the universe moves from one period of time to the next. This is called the "A theory" of time, and proposes that the future and past do not exist in the same way that the present does. That is, to the outsider, the universe is a three dimensional entity that changes as time passes [1]. The Kalam argument depends on this theory, as the Kalam argument's most outspoken supporter, William Lane Craig, suggests: "On a B-theory of time the universe never truly comes into being at all... neither coming into or going out of being. The four-dimensional space-time manifold is in this latter sense eternal." [2] The B-theory of time states that the universe is a four dimensional structure, the fourth dimension being time, laid out like the other spatial dimensions. The past, present, and future are all equally real, and the passing of time is an illusion, that someone observing the universe in its entirety would not understand. But more importantly, this would mean that the universe exists timelessly, much like God is said to exist outside of time. If this is the case, then the universe does not begin to exist. There is no philosophical consensus as to which theory, A or B, is more likely, and I do not favor one over the other. But, the kalam argument rests on the A theory, so premise (1) can be reasonably disputed. Now, premise (1) can also be disputed. It suggests that, if premise (2) is correct, and the universe begins to exist, then it requires a cause. I defined "begins to exist" in detail in (2'), as a transition from not existing to existing. Everything in the universe that begins to exist used to not exist. The computer I am typing this on has a history to it. It was bought, and before that was made, and before that did not exist. I can point to a time in history when the computer did not exist, and a time after it when the computer did. [3] However, even if we assume that the passing of time is not an illusion, the universe did not begin to exist in this way. The current cosmological theory of the universe's origin is that there was a big bang, that spawned the universe as we know it, arising from an initial big bang singularity. before this big bang event, there was no time; the big bang is the beginning of time itself. So, there was no actual time at which the universe did not exist. Before the big bang, there was no "empty" state where time existed but the universe did not. Hence, the universe did not "begin to exist" in the conventional sense, as there was no transition from non existence to existence, or from potentiality to actuality. Hence, unlike things in the universe, like my computer, the universe itself was never merely potential. It did not require some force to move it from non-existence to existence. Hence, the fact that things in the universe require a cause, does not show that the universe itself requires a cause. The fact that my computer requires a cause doesn't give us reason to believe that the universe must require a cause, because it at no point in time failed to exist. The universe has existed for the whole of time, even if time is finite. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] William Lane Craig, 'Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, (2000), p232-3 [3] This objection is based on a paper by Wes Morriston: http://stripe.colorado.edu... Finally, I would like to wish everyone on debate.org a very merry christmas, and a happy winter all round!