Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave. (Howdy!)I agree with my opponent when he states that we should define atheism as the belief that there is no god. The conclusion of the cosmological argument for a self-caused universe is that god does not exist. Therefore, we are dealing with atheism in the logically positive sense (god does not exist) rather than atheism in the logically negative sense (I lack belief that god exists).You'll remember that, in my last round, I gave reasons for thinking that there is no initial state. The first reason was that the singularity is scientifically unnecessary once you take into effect quantum mechanics. The second reason was that a singularity would break down even if it did exist. These are scientific and mathematical reasons for thinking that the singularity does not exist. In a discussion about cosmology, I believe that these should take precedence over philosophical reasons. Perhaps it's hard to conceive of how we reached the present moment if there is no singularity. Even if I can't solve the philosophical issues of there being no singularity, it does not mean that a singularity existed. This is because we have scientific and mathematical arguments against the existence of such a singularity. Philo may win the philosophical arguments, but he hasn't touched the scientific and mathematical arguments I gave as to why a singularity does not exist. The scientific and mathematical evidence, which are the most important evidences in this discussion, favor the Pro side of the debate. So, when the voters weigh the arguments, please keep this in mind.Philo's first objection to my argument is that it comitts the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is when you reason that, because something is true of the part, it must be true of the whole. As an example, think of a fence with pickets. I walk by this fence and observe that one of the pickets is brown. Because of this fact, I conclude that the entire fence must also be brown. This is a case of reasoning by composition. However, the cosmological argument for a self-caused universe does not comitt such a fallacy. It does not argue that, because one state of the universe is explained, the whole universe is explained. Rather, it argues that since every state of the universe is caused by another state, the whole universe is explained. What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole, but what is true for all of the parts is necessarily true of the whole. The cosmological argument for a self-caused universe defines the universe as all of the states of the universe. Each of these states are casually explained by a prior state, so all of them are explained. It's rather like seeing a fence with ten pickets, and upon realizing all the pickets are brown, you conclude that the whole fence is brown. In logical terms, if U is defined as all of the S, and every S is casually explained by another S, then you have a casual explanation of U.Philo tries to show that my argument is wrong by implication. If all of the states are caused by another state, and there is no beginning, then there is no way to reach the present moment. However, I think this issue does not apply to my argument. I have developed an argument to demonstrate why this is true.P1: If my view of the universe required time to exist infinitely into the past, then you would have states where T is greater than or equal to thirteen billion years ago.P2: On my model of the universe, there is no state where T is greater than or equal to thirteen billion years ago.C: My view of the universe does not require time to exist infinitely into the past.If I stated that time was infinite into the past, then the issue of how we reach the present moment would be relevant. I haven't stated such a thing. On my view of the universe, there is no state where T is equal to or greater than thirteen billion years ago. Therefore, time is not infinite into the past, but there is no initial state of time either. (I am saying that time does not go infinitely into the past, but there is no first state of time either, for those who are wondering if I'm contradicting myself.)Imagine a number line where you have the beginning of the universe thirteen billion years ago, and then the present moment. Starting from the present moment, you can go back a billion years thirteen times, and then you reach a stopping point where you can't go back any further. You can get to an infinite number of T= states that are between 12 and 13 billion years ago, but you can never get to thirteen billion years. If my view of the universe truly endorsed an infinite number of time in the past, such a thing would not hold. You would be able to go from twelve billion years to thirteen, then fourteen, then fifteen, ad infinitum. That is a view of the universe where time is infinite into the past. However, such an exercise is not possible on my view of the universe, because no T= state is greater than or equal to thirteen billion years ago. The ultimate conclusion is that Philo's criticism of my argument does not apply.I've tried to establish that, on my view, time is not infinite into the past. There is still the issue of whether my divison of time is a real divison, or just a thought experiment. After all, if you cannot divide the T=1 states into 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc., then my view of the universe fails. I think it should be clear, however, that this division of time is very real. Remember that we are talking about time. When you sit down for an hour, you experience half an hour, a fourth of an hour, and an eigth of an hour. You also experience 1/16th of an hour and 1/32nd of an hour, but our brains aren't wired that way. These states of time are very real indeed. They are not just something you can think of.Philo also makes an objection to my argument based on motion. I think the argument begs the question, because it's based on the premise that there is an object at T=0 with no movement. I don't believe that such a state exists. I think there is potential in this argument, however, if Philo were to reformulate it in the next round. I'll be glad to answer it then.The Grim Reaper paradox is extremely interesting. I don't doubt that the thought experiment is reasonable. I doubt the strength of the arguments conclusions when compared to other evidence. The GR paradox states that, if there is in fact an infinite number of states between 0 and 1, then you get an ontological self-contradiction. This self-contradiction is that no GR can kill you, but at the same time, you can never survive. I agree with Philo that this paradox has no epistemological answer. However, I argue that there must be an ontological answer. If there is a self-contradiction with an infinite number of states between 0 and 1, then it contradicts a mathematical fact. This is the mathematical fact that there is no 'first decimal' after 0. There is only 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, etc. If an infinite number of states between 0 and 1 leads to a self-contradiction, then it also follows that a mathematical fact is wrong. But a mathematical fact cannot be wrong by definition! Therefore, there is no way for an infinite number of states between 0 and 1 to be self-contradictory. It then follows that the GR paradox has an answer, even if we aren't aware of what that answer is.I don't have many objections to what Philo says later on. If there is in fact a beginning, then there is an initial state, and that initial state must be caused. I just want to leave Philo with one question on this point. Many theists argue that the explanation of the initial state must be personal or material, and since the latter is impossible, it must be a personal cause that is god. However, why can't the cause be non-material, but also non-personal? If a non-material and non-personal cause of the initial state is at least possible, then the reasoning theists use becomes a false dichotomy. (Thanks to RationalThinker for this interesting point.)Vale. (See ya'll later!)