The Existence of God

My opponent seems to be egregiously confused about his own resolution. He is supposed to be defending the First Cause argument, yet concedes that he "know[s] the proposition is self defeating." Perhaps I can make his own position clear to him... Responses: >> "Yeah but Quantum events are dependant on time and space. That is why Quantum mechanics can attempt to explain it." Dependence on the framework of time and space is not the same as causality. >> "Yeah and you cannot imagine everything exploding from nothing because you have no idea what nothing is. Does that mean that this is impossible to you?' Something coming from nothing? Only in quantum mechanics, but certainly possible. If you're referring to the Big Bang, I suggest you read up on the theory... >> "Time will have an end." No it won't - it can't. Time is not dependent on the existence of space. Everything, even the universe itself could be destroyed, but time would remain. Time is not any sort of physical entity - it is merely a means by which we measure the relativity of two events. >> "How could time exist in a place that has always been. It wouldnt be possible. " Again, it surely would. Your own reference above even contains the time-dependent term "always," which, in metaphysical or space-time terms simply means, "at all times" ("times" meaning points of observation, even if only possibilities). There is absolutely no reason for my opponent to make the above claim. >> "Gravity has no effect on time or space. You misunderstood me." No - I understood you perfectly. You do not understand astrophysics. Gravity creates a warping of time and space. Gravity has EVERYTHING to do with time and space. The best way to think of it is like a bowling ball (our sun) on a trampoline (spacetime). The trampoline bows inwards towards the object (albeit in all dimensions instead of just 2), representing the curvature of spacetime caused by large objects. This curvature means that objects moving away from the massive object have to "climb" up the gravity well to reach escape velocity. Since the universe is expanding and trying to race up IT'S OWN gravity well, it will eventually fail and begin to fall (contract). >> "I know the proposition is self defeating." The proposition he refers to is my statement: "If one can conceive of an uncaused cause or something that does not need a cause, then one has already accepted acausality. And once this has been done, the need for a first cause entirely disappears. The proposition is self-defeating." Sounds like a concession to me. ********************************************************** >> "the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause, which unfortunately must have been infinite and must not have had a cause." I suppose for giggles I'll re-address this, since my opponent didn't understand my rebuttal... If the first cause is infinite and acausal, you have already committed yourself to something that does not follow the rules of causality. Once you make this move, you abandon one of the fundamental principles that your argument was founded on (causality). The first cause argument cannot stand because it is based on a form of argument that uses a premise only when it is convenient. When one makes the first cause argument by abandoning causality, the proposition cannot stand. If the first cause had no cause, then my opponent must provide some sort of explanation of WHY it had no cause. Abandoning causality destroys the entire infinite regress notion. Your argument basically asks the voters to support a notion where the premise of your argument ("Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes") is suddenly abandoned for one instance of the very thing your premise is in regards to. Consider: All E are C. At least one E is not C. Your argument does not stand. NEGATED.