A Cosmological Argument for God is Sound

Thanks Pro. I. Preface Pro has still yet to affirm P2, that the universe had a beginning, moreover Pro has yet to give reasons to accept P1, too. As such he has already failed to demonstrate his argument. I will attempt to finish off my argumentation in this round and save next round for summaries. II. If universe had a beginning, then there must be a pre-existing eternal transcendent cause To round back to my quantum mechanics example, currently big bang theory depicts the universe was at some point smaller than an atom.[3] At these scales quantum effects become extremely significant, and hence we have excellent reason to believe that before this point the universe would not obey our common notions of causality. Furthermore, macroscopic ‘stuff’ DOES behave according to quantum mechanics, the only difference is that the summation of all these numerous quantum effects naturally yields effects that are identical to those given by Classical (Newtonian) mechanics. Newtonion physics is nothing more than a macroscopic generalization of all the quantum effects that occur.[1,2] z88; III. The universe has a beginning z88; Furthermore, Pro has given absolutely no reason to believe an infinite chain is impossible, nor any reason to reject that the ‘substance’ behind the universe, such as the quantum vacuum cannot itself be eternal. Remember Pro applies this reasoning to his own proposal of God, but exactly the same reasoning can be applied to a physical cause which would also remove the ‘extra assumptions’ of this cause being a mind. So we have no fewer than two possible explanations: 1. The universe is eternal (such as in eternal inflation) 2. The universe is an infinite regression There is nothing illogical about either, Pro needs to more than baldly assert that it is, and do so in a way in which applying the same logic to God is not special pleading. Pro does try to address this: ""Where did they come from, are they eternal, and etc? Point is there is no evidence for them. So arguing for multiverse, as a fact, is just non-sense. (But it is a nice theory, and has some degree of plausibility.)" Pro seems to be committing a fallacy of ‘favouring the hypothesis’ here, since exactly the same points he makes about naturalistic explanations can be applied to his own explanation of God (no evidence, cannot be eternal, etc) with just as much justification, if not more. Moreover Pro ahs ignored my evidence for eternal inflation. Furthermore there is another option: 3. The universe spontaneously generated ex nihilo Which is a speculative idea, yet is another possibility that Pro needs to rule out. Especially given there are existing proposals for just a beginning. IV. Conscious Cause This doesn’t seem to be going away, so I will present an argument against an immaterial mind. But remember Pro has given zero reasons why the cause should be a mind in the fist place, and I argue it violates Occum’s Razor. The Interaction Problem: P1. If mind and matter are not one in the same, then mind interacts with matter P2. Mind can not interact (and does not) interact with matter C. 1 & 2 form a contradiction, therefore mind & matter are one in the same. P1 must be true if Pro is to argue a mind can cause the physical universe, moreover if our own minds are immaterial then they need to interact with out bodies to make us move. To defend P2 any 2 substances which interact need to also share properties. For example a magnet needs to share a disturbance in the electromagnetic field to move an iron nail. Or a planet needs to share a disturbance in space-time to affect a star. Similarly a mind needs to share a property with the body to interact with it, however Pro has ruled this out by definition, since they are defined as completely different materials (apparent immaterial, atemporal, aspacial etc). Ergo if mind is immaterial, then it would not be possible for it to interact with matter. V. Conclusion I will save my summaries for next round, back to Pro! VI. References 1. http://www.yalescientific.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...