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

I thank Philochristos for his response. -What Is Meant By "Cause"?- A necessary cause is still a cause by definition. Therefore, as long as I assume the universe has a necessary cause then, respectfully, I did not reject the supposition of the debate. I must only assume the universe has a cause ("a" means at the very least one type of cause). -On The Copenhagen Interpretation- Pro quotes Sean Carrol saying that this interpretation is nonsense and no thoughtful person still holds to it. However, Anton Zeilinger and his team have conducted break through experiments in the field of quantum mechanics (such as the "Quantum Erasure With Causally Disconnected Choice" experiment [1]). So he is clearly a thoughtful person, yet, adheres to the Copenhagen interpretation based on experimental results. Thus, Sean Carrol is wrong. I even cited an experiment lending support to the Copenhagen interpretation in my first round. Secondly, my opponent argues that all interpretations of quantum mechanics are ad hoc in a sense, and that the Copenhagen interpretation being easier to deal with doesn't make it true. What makes the Copenhagen interpretation more likely than hidden variable theories is that we can determine how a quantum system would act if there were hidden variables in the mix, and experiments show that our results don't match up to such scenarios (like in the experiment I cited in my first round). Local hidden variables have been ruled out by violations of Bell's inequality [2]. Non-local hidden variable theories take a huge blow due to violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality [3]. Every time an experiment is done it seems to line up with Orthodox Quantum Mechanics perfectly while deterministic theories keep getting more difficult to justify. This is what separates a good interpretation from a weak one. Pro states that while the Copenhagen gives us instances without sufficient causes they still have material causes. This is a red-herring I'm afraid as it is completely irrelevant. The point of mentioning quantum fluctuations was to show that we can have impersonal necessary conditions without sufficient conditions and a coming into being of something can still occur based on such a state of affairs; not to show that the universe could have a material cause or be a quantum event. Since Pro's argument about an eternal impersonal cause always having an eternal effect requires impersonal sufficient conditions as the only other option besides personal agency, and he has not shown sufficient conditions to be required; his argument does not succeed. I only referenced Quantum Mechanics to show that impersonal necessary conditions without sufficient causation likely occurs in the actual world. All I needed to do was point out that Pro hasn't ruled out impersonal spontaneity to undermine his reasoning; quantum mechanics was just the icing on the cake. My opponent's first two arguments in favor of the resolution completely fail and I didn't even need to cite quantum mechanics to demonstrate this. All I had to do is point out that the universe beginning spontaneously due to an impersonal necessary cause which allows such a thing, has not been ruled out by Pro. He assumes in his arguments that sufficient conditions are required for an impersonal option which is why the arguments are not sound. -On Philochristos' Third Argument- Pro says that when energy is created in "just the right way" then nature takes its course. However, a problem arises. This energy wouldn't "know" (excuse the anthropomorphism) which way to be created in order to cause the desired physical effect without the immaterial mind causing it do so. There is no reason to think that willing your arm to move (the mental event) wouldn't cause a burst of energy out of nothing to cause a random particle on Jupiter to move instead of your arm to move. Thus, more interaction than what Pro is implying is actually needed. Also, how can something that is not spatially extended and which is metaphysically distinct from anything material cause anything to begin to exist in space? Since these two substances are metaphysically distinct there seems to be a complete causal disconnection due to lack of common properties. Another problem with Pro's reasoning is that if mental events cause material energy to be created in our universe then it should be measurable by science just like any other energy in the universe. However, when an arm moves the chain of causation is traced back to energy that already exists in the brain. If there was energy being created out of nothing that was actually causing arms to move then it would have measurable effects in a laboratory just like any other energy; yet it doesn't. So an argument against Pro's reasoning can be formulated as such: P1: If it is the case that mental states cause the creation of material energy from nothing in the universe, then this energy would have been detected by scientists P2: This energy has not been detected by scientists C: Therefore, it is not the case that mental states cause the creation of material energy from nothing in the universe Either way, this debate was not meant to discuss the Interaction Problem. I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that not only does the immaterial mind interact with the material world, but that it does so via Pro's method. -More On The Spontaneous Universe And A Timeless Mind- Pro says a mind is the only thing we know of which is a timeless, immaterial, entity that can contribute somehow to the beginning of the universe ex nihilo. Thus, this explanation is preferred. However, the universe doesn't need to begin to exist ex nihilo; only from something that is not the universe. Also, we only know that temporal minds create energy ex nihilo (at least I am willing to grant that for this debate), not that timeless minds do. There are also countless conceivable ways a universe can begin to exist without personal agency so I don't see how Pro has proven his case. I'll give one example...If you added up the total energy of the universe it would likely equal zero (as the positive energy of matter is offset by the negative energy of gravity and is stored in space). Thus, 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 and no initial energy input required. As Physicist Alexander Vilenkin states: "The positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the energy of gravity which is always negative. So the total energy of a closed universe is necessarily zero." - Alexander Vilenkin [4] My opponent goes on to argue that since a mind is only thing we know that creates energy out of nothing this is the best candidate. However, like I stated, creation from nothing is not a prerequisite for candidacy here. The universe only needs to come from something that is not the universe; it doesn't have to come from nothing. Either way, Pro would have to show that known explanations (which do a great job explaining things within the universe) are preferred with regards to explanations outside the universe. This has not been accomplished. -In Conclusion- Pro has not ruled out the idea that the universe can begin to exist spontaneously with only a set of impersonal necessary conditions in place. He only appeals to a mind as it is the only thing he can think of which can do something similar to what would have to be done for the universe to exist. This is not a convincing line of reasoning because appealing to what we know for explanations with regards to what may be beyond the universe has not been shown to be valid form of justification. -Sources- [1] http://www2.mpq.mpg.de... [2] https://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://m.pnas.org... [4] http://m.youtube.com...