Creationism vs. Atheism

Thank you CON for participating in this debate. I am very much looking forward to this interesting discussion. Clarifying Definitions (Dictionary.com)[1]: 1. Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no G-d. 3. Infinite: unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: The body of the argument (re-written and clarified)[2][3]: The premises underlying the argument: 1.It is impossible for a thing to create itself. 2.Causes are limited in number, and since their number is limited there must be a first cause before any other. 3.Anything that is composite is created/had a beginning. The demonstration is the following: Premise number one: Consider a thing that exists after having not existed. It faces one of two possibilities. A. Either something made it, or B. It made itself. In considering possibility A: if something makes itself, it either made itself before it existed or after it existed. Both are an impossibility. For if we argue it made itself before it existed, well, before it existed it was absolutely nothing and from nothing can come neither action nor cessation of action. And, if we say it made itself after it existed, it did nothing for it already existed. Therefore it is impossible for a "thing" to be self-caused. Premise number two: I am not arguing that the world has an end as in a termination point, however and "end" as in it is manifest/observable/quantifiable. Anything that has and end must have a beginning (i.e. the "end effect" of a cause must have a prior cause). As it is inconceivable that something (an "end") without any beginning could traverse infinity where its effect is observable to us in the present time. Or otherwise stated, it is inconceivable to argue that something which never begun would have any end manifested effect since that which never begins could not conceivably have an "end". Therefore, that which has an end quantifiable/observable effect must be the composite of prior causes that parameterize it so that it can be quantifiable/observable. As a demonstration: You mentioned atoms. Since atoms have an "end" they must have a "beginning." As in the end of the atom is manifest or begins at the mergers of its subatomic particles. And since subatomic particles have an "end" quantifiable effect, they too must have a beginning, which is the merger of the quarks, leptons, bosons, etc. that compose those particles. And since these units have an "end-effect", they too must have a beginning radiation/energy etc. An since this chain of causes cannot go on ad-infinitum, as you cannot in actuality have an infinity of finites since in reality infinity is a description of a unity that does not begin or end, not the summation of finites as no sum of finites can in actuality yield infinity. Therefore, the series of causes that manifest an atom must come to an end at that which is uncaused. This can be demonstrated in another manner: The "end-effect" of any organism"s existence is due to the merger of the "prior causes" that bring it about. For a human that means our parents, for cells that means prior cells, etc. Once again, it is impossible to argue that any of these entities are uncaused as if they indeed were, then they would have no "end" either "observable end" or/and actual "death-end." Once again it is impossible to state that there is an infinite regress of finite causes going back in time ad-infinitum as this would be proposing an infinity of countable/finite causes which in reality could not exists since there is no summation of finite causes that could ever equal "infinity causes". Another demonstration: It is also obvious that anything that has a part has a whole, as the whole is but the sum of its parts. To think that the infinite has a part is inconceivable, as what can be defined as a part or separate of that which is truly infinite? A part is defined as one quantity separated from another, the smaller from the greater. Now, if we imagine a thing that is actually infinite and we take a part from it, what remains will certainly be less than what is was before. Now if the remainder is still infinite then one infinite is greater than another infinite which in actuality is an impossibility. If the remainder is finite, and we put back the part we took away, the whole will be finite. We had assumed at the start, however, that the whole was infinite, which is an impossible contradiction. It follows then, that it is impossible to take a part from that which is infinite and that whatever has a part is most certainly finite. Now in the above examples we separated out a part of the causes that intersect to yield an atom, we also separated out causes that yield a living organism. Since this section of causes is a numbered/finite part of the causes that yield an end result, the whole of the series of causes is finite. And since the whole of this world is finite (finite atoms, finite/quantifiable number of people who have ever lived thus far, etc) its causes must also be limited in number. It follows then that this world has a first cause before which there is no other cause; and, for this reason, the series of causes necessarily comes to an end with the First Cause, which is the Infinite Singularity of the Universe (AKA G-d). This debunks CONs argument that "Perhaps the stuff that made up the early universe always existed; perhaps it grew out of another universe, or a multiverse." Since this argument would be stating the logical fallacy of infinite regress where in actuality a finite series of causes is clearly manifest. The arguments above thusly demonstrate the universe must have begun, since if the universe never began then the "end" manifested point of existence would not in actuality be manifest (above arguments). Premise number three: Anything that is composite consists of more than one component. So too, the individual units that comprise the composite structure must precede the composite in nature. Therefore that which is composite is created. Now, what is eternal has no cause; what has no cause has no beginning; what has no beginning has no end. What has a beginning is not eternal. What is not eternal has been brought into existence, for between that which is eternal and that which has been brought into existence there is nothing that can be said to be neither eternal nor brought into existence. Therefore, anything that is composite is not eternal since it had a beginning, and therefore must have been brought into existence. In Summary: In summary, it can be understood from the above premises that our world "stands" upon a single absolutely infinite Creator or the non-composite Singularity of all the worlds. In observing the "end" of this world one must logically reach the conclusion of a "beginning" Creator who is the ultimate non-composite, and totally infinite singularity of the universe, both back in time and in structure. [1] www.dictionary.com [2] http://dafyomireview.com... [3]Duties of the Heart, Rabbi Bachya ibn Paquda