The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

However, it is not difficult to point out why my opponent's entire case is utterly meaningless. Premise 1 of the Cosmological ArgumentPro claims that infinity cannot exist because "you would never get to the beginning". However, this is exactly what an infinite past posits in the first place; no beginning point. Just reiterating what an infinite past posits is not an argument against an infinite past. Therefore, my opponent's argument that an infinite past is impossible is a non-sequitur[1], as the conclusion does not follow. My opponent is also committing the fallacy of presumption[2] by just presuming that the universe must have had a first state without sufficient justification. Additionally, there is nothing logically impossible about infinity. Contemporary Set-Theory (invented by Georg Cantor) makes use of an infinite set mathematically in a completely coherent fashion[3], and Set Theory is widely accepted by mathematicians. In Set Theory, there can be a sequence of infinite discrete ordered sets; each one with a greatest but no smallest member. Each set would actually extend its predecessor by an additional largest element. Therefore, not only do we have no basis for the claim that infinity is impossible, we actually have a good mathematical basis for the claim that it is indeed possible. Premise 2 of the Cosmological ArgumentMy opponent starts off here with a straw-man[4] logical fallacy. Pro claims that I would "like to believe" that there could be no state before The Big Bang. However, that is not the argument. Quentin Smith argues that if you delete the singularity at t=0, then there is no moment directly after it as any moment you can point to would be preceded by another point no matter how small (every real number is in between two real numbers). Since Pro has misrepresented the argument at hand; it stands firmly unscathed. Not only has Pro not defended the First Principle, but Quentin Smith's argument does of good job of showing that it is in no way required. Pro then commits the red-herring[5] logical fallacy by arguing that the singularity had to have been caused by something or it has always existed. However, Quentin argues that there was never a singularity to begin with, because a singularity prediction posits a state which is mathematically impermissible (temperature = some number "n" over zero, and density = some number "n" over zero). Pro never addressed this part of my argument. Thus, it stands. Now, as far as the Reasonable Faith link from Pro which supposedly addresses Quentin Smith's argument; Pro should be extremely embarrassed. The argument William Lane Craig is addressing is Quentin Smith's "A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence (1992)"[6]. The argument I am proposing is Quentin Smith's "A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (2008)"[7]. These two arguments are completely different. Thus, Pro's link has no bearing on the argument from Quentin Smith I put forward. I would even argue that a relevant Reasonable Faith link, by itself with no argument, would have no bearing on Quentin Smith's argument as I presented it regardless. Premise 3 of the Cosmological ArgumentI agree that if there is truth to this Firth Principle, then the dichotomy in question is a true-dichotomy. The problem still remains that Pro has left us with no reason to believe this First Principle is true. Premise 4 of the Cosmological Argument My opponent denies the appeal to ignorance[8] charge, but the charge is justified and it stands. My opponent's exact words used to support this particular notion were:"All examples of non-sentient mechanisms in nature show that they simply exist, or are caused to activate, and do not merely activate on their own" - ProHowever, even if we have no examples of non-sentient mechanisms that activate on their own, that does not mean that they cannot exist. This is self-evidently a fallacious appeal to ignorance, and I urge a conduct vote against Pro for his apparent intellectually dishonesty. Regardless, I appealed to indeterministic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, and gave an example (Uranium-238) of a non-sentient mechanism which changes (decays) on its own. Pro then commits the shifting the goal post fallacy[9] by saying that Uranium-238 does not involve something coming into existence on its own. However, this is not what we are arguing. We are arguing whether something non-sentient can act on its own or not; I gave good reasons to believe it can. Thus, even if there is truth to this first principle, we are left with no reason to believe the First Principle has to be sentient. Premise 5 of the Cosmological ArgumentPro gives no reason as to why we should believe that a "will" is necessary to explain the universe, and just presupposes this truth without warrant. Thus, this section from Pro can be dismissed. Pro's Analogy Pertaining to Quantum MechanicsHere Pro breaks his own rule by committing the special-pleading[10] logical fallacy. This is evident by the fact that Pro assumes that it is possible for God can have an eternal mind (which would be en eternal process of mental activity), but the universe cannot be eternal and engaged in an eternal process. This is clearly a fallacious double-standard. Conclusion. Pro has failed to support any of his assertions. All of Pro's assertions are tied together fallaciously. Pro engaged in misconduct by:(i) Being intellectually dishonest with regards to the self-evidently warranted appeal to ignorance charge(ii) Breaking his own "no special-pleading" ruleI have clearly met my burden of proof, and Pro clearly has not met his. As it stands, the resolution has been negated. Sources[1] . http://rationalwiki.org...[2] . http://www.philosophypages.com...[3] . http://www.math.ku.edu...[4] . http://www.nizkor.org...;[5] . http://www.nizkor.org...;[6] . http://www.infidels.org...;[7] . http://www.infidels.org...;[8] . http://www.fallacyfiles.org...;[9] . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[10] . http://www.nizkor.org...;