The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Ave.It seems that Hitch is going to continue to name random logical fallacies in an attempt to make his argument look superior to mine. I encourage the readers of the debate to do their own research, and it should be obvious that none of the fallacies Hitch names have anything to do with my arguments. Sadly, however, DDO conduct requires me to answer the small fires Hitch has started.Appeal to Authority: There isn’t anything new to say here. I quoted Apeiron because the arguments came from him, so if I didn’t give credit, I’d be plagiarizing. Hitch has jumped all over the fact that I quoted Apeiron, and never responds to the substance of the argument I gave. This is interesting, ladies and gentlemen.Begging the Question: Begging the question is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of the argument is implied in the premises. This means that the premises, in some way, assume the conclusion to be true, which makes the argument circular. In my opening round, I stated that modus ponens was a logically valid form. Hitch doesn’t disagree, but he tries to argue that it’s a tautology, much like saying that facts are facts or that atoms are atoms. My question is: so what? What does this have to do with the conclusion of the argument being implied in the premises? Absolutely nothing. Hitch never shows that this is begging the question, and this allegation is ludicrous and distracting.Association Fallacy: Again--so what? What does the fact that the PSR usually isn’t justified by empiricism have to do with the association fallacy? The association fallacy states that because A is B, and A is C, then B must be C as well. Hitch has never demonstrates that anything I’ve said follows this fallacious logical formulation.Bare Assertion Fallacy: A bare assertion fallacy is when you assert something to be true just because you or someone else said so. It’s rather like a parent who says ‘’because I told you so’’. Hitch argues that I used this logic when trying to prove the PSR. That’s obviously not the case, because I gave reasons as to why the PSR was true. If I were to argue that the PSR is true because WLC said so, or because I said so, then there’s a fallacy in there. But that’s not the case.Correlation/Causation: Hitch asserts that I haven’t given any reason to think the cause is god. This is completely false. I gave an entire argument in my opening statement to prove that the cause was personal. I argued that there are personal and physical causes, and since the latter could not have caused physical things to it exist, it is more plausibly the former. Why would Hitch say that I never gave any reason as to why the cause was god? Perhaps he said this because he has entirely ignored this argument since I gave it.Hitch’s Straw man: I pointed out several examples of straw men on Hitch’s part. The first straw man was Hitch thinking that ‘’everything that begins to exist has a cause’’ and ‘’the universe began to exist’’ are supposed to demonstrate the existence of god. The second straw man was when he argued that theists think ‘’everything has a cause and effect’’. Using the KCA, I demonstrated that these were simply straw men. What does Hitch have to say in response? He brings up his past accusations of logical fallacies. This is simply irrelevant to the point I made, so Hitch drops this.Ignoratio Elenchi: Hitch comically asserts that presentism has nothing to do with the A-theory of time. This is interesting, because the A-theory of time is nothing but presentism! Consider what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has to say.‘’For some A Theorists also endorse a view known as ‘Presentism and others endorse a view that we will call ‘The Growing Universe Theory.’’’The grim-reaper paradox is supposed to prove my A-theory of time. It’s just embarrassing to assert that presentism has nothing to do with A-theory. This is unfortunate for Hitch, because other than messing up the terminology, he never responds to the paradox.Hitch argues that the A-theory of time is wrong, because if it is true, then Einstein never really existed. This argument just begs the question. It’s rather like saying ‘’If atheism is true, then god doesn’t exist. But god does exist, therefore atheism is false,’’ You can’t say A-theory of time is wrong using a premise that assumes A-theory of time to be wrong!Reductio ad Absurdum: Hitch takes my arguments in favor of ‘’ex nihilo nihil fit’’ and puts them under a category called ‘’Reductio ad Absurdum’’. I’m very confused as to what his point is. RAA is not a logical fallacy, it is a method of argumentation. Keep in mind that, aside from this bizarre move, Hitch has not answered the two arguments I gave.Now that we've put out the small fires Hitch started, let's talk about Bell's Inqualities and the Copenhagen interpretation. Hitch asserts that string theory can reconcile Bell's inequalities with the Copenhagen interpretation. The problem is that string theory is extremely controversial and hasn't even been proven. Hitch can't assert that string theory reconciles Bell with Bohr (founder of the Copenhagen interpretation) unless he proves string theory to be true. And sadly, there isn't any more room for him to make that argument in this debate, considering that he can't make arguments in his last round.On the point of nothingness, Hitch argues that something always exists because matter isn't created or destroyed. This doesn't show that matter existed forever. Once the universe begins existing, and matter forms, then matter cannot be created or destroyed. Conservation of mass only works in closed systems. The universe is such a closed system, but the closed system has to begin to exist before the conservation of mass can apply to that closed system.Hitch argues that the closest thing to nothing is physics is the quantum vacuum. I can grant him this and doesn't have any implications on ex nihilo nihil fit. This is a metaphysical principle that states that something cannot come from nothing. When you're doing physics, feel free to work with the assumption that the quantum vacuum is the closest thing to nothingness that you can get. Just don't go around saying that virtual particles come from this 'nothing', when it's really a thin sort of something.God, as a cause of the universe, would exist without time. This means that a god without a beginning cannot demonstrate that time existed forever, because time didn't exist with god. A god that has no beginning, therefore, does not require time without a beginning.Hitch also straw mans me again. Perhaps one of my sources claimed to contradict special relativity. However, I never brought that up as a contention in this debate. Not once did I make any arguments based off special relativity being incorrect. I have no obligation to answer this straw man argument.The fact that something is timeless and unchanging does not mean something can not change in the future, like taking on time as a contingent property, for example.Hitch seems to think that I believe Vilenkin is some type of god, so I have to reconcile my use of Vilenkin with other things he has said. Obviously, it's necessary to put my use of Vilenkin in context once more. I'm quoting Vilenkin simply because he agrees that the astrophysical evidence demonstrates the beginning of the universe in a finite and measurable time in the past. Even Lawrence Krauss, an atheist who thinks the universe came from 'nothing, wrote an entire chapter in his book about why the universe began to exist. Hitch may appeal to things existing eternally, but I showed that even those models require a beginning, which hasn't been answered to.I wish I didn't have to spend so much of my space answering Hitch's false accusations of logical fallacies. If I had more space, I would have wrote more on time, physics, and presentism v.s. eternalism. I didn't have the time to do this because I had to spend time on Hitch's accusations.Other than that, Vale.