The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1K

I once again thank TheSkeptic for this courteous yet rigorous dialog. P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. My opponent rightly points out that "just because we always experience [my] causal principle does NOT mean we are allowed to then say it's an universal principle." I will admit that Hume's problem of induction gives us reason to doubt the principle as a universal and abstract law. However, I still contend this principle is rational. It is more parsimonious to assume this principle is true for at least three reasons: 1. It is consistently observed. (We see cause and effect everywhere.) 2. Science presupposes it. (What caused that?) 3. It is a property of time. (Events caused by prior events.) Using a favorite atheist quip, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is reasonable to consider anything uncaused to be extraordinary. It is important, however, to note the difference between uncaused and indeterminate. This principle does not deny the unpredictability found in quantum physics, since something random can very well still have a cause. Indeed, quantum physicists have not given up the search for cause, even though the causes of such random events will indeed prove elusive. Why would science continue if not for this principle? My opponent uses a straw man argument when he argues that premise P1 and P2 are interdependent. In so doing, he can use his rejection of P2 to reject P1, a simple defeat of an argument I am not making. I submit that the causal principle stands on its own and have done so from the beginning. To say that such interdependence is "obvious" without substantiation is further evidence of this straw man tactic. While this principle is not a universal law that can be induced, it is nevertheless rational. Logically accepting this premise as valid should at the very least be considered more rational than to call upon it when it is convenient but reject it when dealing with metaphysical topics such as these. P2. The universe began to exist. My opponent puts all his eggs his basket as made evident in his concluding remarks. He says, "All cosmological theories, whether infinite-past or not do not have a theistic element." This is a blatant straw man attempt to win the debate. I NEVER used P2 to argue for God's existence! It was he that chose to ignore P3 and P4, which bridges the gap between a universe with a beginning to a personal creator. My only purpose in this premise is to show that the universe had a beginning. The Inflationary Universe model places our expanding universe into a larger EXPANDED universe of expanding universes. Guth, the one that developed the model, later showed that ALL expanding universes must have a singularity and, therefore, a beginning. My opponent's discussion of B-theory is quite simply poor scholarship. He says we are talking about ACTUAL infinity and not an actual infinite number of real things. Thus, he is ignoring my argument by appealing to an abstract concept. I already pointed out the difference between these things. Let me reiterate: 1. Actual infinity (a concept of an infinite set that is already complete. Also called a Complete infinity.) 2. Potential infinity (a concept of an set that grows indefinitely but, at any given point, is finite.) 3. Actual infinite number of things (a realized complete infinity.) 1 and 2 are valid as they are conceptual and useful. Number 3 is impossible. My opponent has not shown that it is impossible except to appeal to Zeno's paradox. He says I never showed Zeno's paradox to be inadequate. Allow me to quote from Round 2, "My opponent engages in equivocation when presenting the Zeno paradox, which does not illustrate an ACTUAL infinity, but a POTENTIAL infinity." (emphasis added) I don't know how to make my objection any clearer than this. B-theory does not escape the problem of an actual number of things because it ASSUMES it. Therefore, B-theory is not an adequate refutation of my assertion that an infinite number of things are impossible. Furthermore, my opponent did not answer my objection that B-theory deals with conceptual time rather than dimensional time. Dimensional time, according to general relativity, has a beginning. I think I have adequately supported this premise by using modern cosmological models, correcting my opponent's misuse of actual/complete infinity, and refuting the applicability of B-theory. C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. If whatever begins to exist has a cause (P1) and the universe began to exist (P2), then the universe has a cause. P3. The first cause must be eternal. P4. All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal. My opponent has simple written these off as "riddled with philosophical holes." He is confident that he has shown P1 and P2 to be inadequate to argue for God's existence. As I already pointed out, P1 and P2 were never meant to argue for God's existence--only that the universe has a cause. While I was willing to drop P5 and P6 in Round 2, I never conceded these arguments. They are vital to my case and their dismissal should not go unnoticed to the voters. C2. The universe was caused by a personal creator. If the universe has a cause (C1), and the cause must be eternal (P3), then the universe has an eternal cause. If the universe has an eternal cause and all eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal (P4), then the universe must have been caused by a personal agent. CONCLUSION I thank the readers for taking time to consider this dialog. No doubt there will be many readers that think one side had the better position, but I respectfully ask you to vote on the merits of our arguments themselves. Even if you disagree with my position, if you feel I argued more effectively, I ask you to give me the vote for convincing argument. The same goes for the reverse. However, I feel a conduct vote for me is merited given my opponent's dismissal of arguments and attempts to merge arguments that I purposely separated. That being said, I recognize that voting remains solely your discretion. Thank you again, TheSkeptic, for forcing me to exercise my debate skills. It's always a pleasure to debate you.