Rematch Debate: God Exists

R1) Teleological Argument I accept that the universe is an LPU. But this is no justification for intelligent design, as this is easily subject to reductio ad absurdum, wherein one might say the universe is an RPU -- a rock permitting universe. If the universe has to be ‘finely-tuned’ for life, it would also have to be ‘finely-tuned’ for rocks. This is ascribing intrinsic value to life with no justification. Now, Pro’s teleological premises are that the universe could have been an LPU by “chance, necessity or intelligent design.” The universe could have also been an RPU similarly, etc. But to ascribe something with actual value is incoherent, thus the ideal analogy is that the universe is a “universe-permitting universe”, i.e. the universe exists out of either chance, design or physical necessity. Now, I shall be supporting the concept that the universe could exist out of physical necessity with equal probability as intelligent design. Pro says the universe being non-LPU is not absurd, thus it is not necessarily an LPU. This variation of the teleological argument is referred to as the ‘fine-tuning’ argument, i.e. the idea that the universe is unique in that it is a universe fine-tuned for life, with the physical constant values of the universe [1]. According to philosopher Theodore M. Drange, “Other values for physical constants [are] highly improbable. … [T]he burden of proof is still on the advocates of FTA [to show that other values for physical constants are possible].” [2] Furthermore, “[Michael Hurben and Theodore Drange] have offered various objections to this new argument to design: that the values of the various physical constants aren't really ‘tunable’ and thus couldn't have been ‘set’ to anything other than the values we find.” [3] According to particle physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger, “[I]t can be shown that the conditions necessary for the evolution of some form of life would have arisen from a wide variation in physical constants.” [4] While I do not outright reject the fine-tuned universe hypothesis, as Drange poses, how is it possible for the universe to have been ‘tuned’ otherwise? Stenger also posits that our ‘type’ of life, i.e. carbon-based life, need not be the only type of life possible [5]. According to inflationary theory, “an inflaton field in the first 10−30 seconds of the universe produces strong repulsive gravity, and the universe and space-time expand by a factor of 1030. After 10−30 seconds, gravity starts to become attractive. In this framework, with such rapid expansion, the overall shape of the universe at 14 billion years is much less sensitive to initial parameters … thus, the fine-tuning issue disappears.” [6] Andre Linde proposed a theory of ‘chaotic inflation’, “the peaks in the evolution of a scalar field (determining the energy of the vacuum) correspond to regions of rapid inflation which dominate.” [7] This theory of eternal inflation was proven by Paul Steinhardt and Alexander Vilenkin independently, and further supported by Alan Guth [8]. This allows for a wholly naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning [9]. Stephen Hawking proposed that the early universe was a superposition of possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today, thus providing a further naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning [10]. Therefore, physical necessity has equal probability as intelligent design, and the argument does not affirm God’s existence. Thus, the teleological argument is refuted. C1) Incoherence of a Caused Universe a) Requirements for Causation First, I shall refute Pro’s analogy of simultaneous causation. Pro asserts that when one sits down, the cause (sitting down) and the effect (causing depression on the cushion) happen at the same time. This is incorrect, as it takes time (i.e. t > 0) for the effect to occur after the cause. In other words, after sitting, it takes an extremely small, albeit finite, amount of time for the cushion to be depressed. For simultaneous causation to be possible, one assumes a presentist ontology of time. As special and general relativity entail eternalism, simultaneous causation is likely impossible. Pro asserts that the cause and effect are not ‘spatially separated’, but since they are (as illustrated above) temporally separated, if eternalism is true, then they are dimensionally separated, and, thus, spatially separated, by the definition of four-dimensionalism [10]. Eternalism, four-dimensionalism and the B-theory of time are all entailed by each other, thus four-dimensionalism is also likely true. The deductive syllogism presented by Pro is entirely cognitive and subjective, and does not include metaphysical causation as described in God’s creation of the universe. This is not a metaphysical causal relationship, and *metaphysical* causal relationships require metaphysical restrictions [11]. b) Eternalism “I would like to say here that eternalism does not, by itself, refute the coherency of causality.” This is a bare assertion. I clearly showed in Round 1, as I will repeat now, that only presentism implies a capacity of change. Eternalism, as mentioned before, entails (and is almost synonymous with) four-dimensionalism and the B-series of time. Philosopher and metaphysician John McTaggart argued that only the A-series of time and presentism can allow for genuine change and causation [12][13]. I used relativity of simultaneity to *prove* that eternalism, the B-theory of time, the B-series and four-dimensionalism are likely true. C2) Atemporal Minds For a mind to have ‘eternal’ ideas, there would have to be *time*, for it to even be ‘eternal.’ Eternalism entails impossibility of change, thus all minds are unchanging, and for a mind to be ‘eternal’, it would necessitate the passage of time. Ergo, if I can show that all known minds require processes, then it would be logically coherent to derive that all minds, known or unknown, require processes. Since God is ‘intelligent’, God would have to have the psychological definition of intelligence. Differential psychologist Lloyd Humphreys defines intelligence as “the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills.” [14] Since intelligence requires a process, if eternalism is true, it is accurate to believe all minds require processes. Thus, the premise is adequately justified. As mentioned, causation requires time. God could say I would cause a storm X, where God is the cause and X is the effect. The ‘thinking’ of it is a process, which requires time to coherently ‘happen’. C3) Law of Parsimony I accept Pro’s interpretation of Occam’s razor, and thus extend the razor from the prior round. I thank Philocat for an interesting debate, and pass it over. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://infidels.org... 3. http://infidels.org... 4. http://www.colorado.edu... 5. http://goo.gl... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 9. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 12. http://www.ditext.com... 13. Michael Tooley (1999). Time and Causation. p. 158. 14. http://www.sciencedirect.com...