The KCA is False

Ave. I’m going to give a general summary of the debate to show that a Pro vote is justified. I will respond to new arguments brought up by Con as well. The first argument I gave against the KCA was from the theory of relativity. The KCA assumes that the theory of relativity is true, but it also assumes that there is a first state of time that god has to cause. I demonstrated, using FLRW metrics, that relativity shows there cannot be a first state of time. Con never tried to show that FLRW equations did not prove such a thing. Instead, he tried to argue against the implications of the idea. The first objection Con gave was that motion would be impossible if there was no first state. I used a philosophical concept called supertasks which showed that motion was possible even if there are an infinite number of sub-states in between two points. Con conceded this objection when he said ‘’Also, I concede my opponent's argument with regards to an actual infinity.’’ So, the first objection is a moot point now, because Con conceded it. This point goes to me. The second objection was against Quentin Smith’s ‘’Principle of Causal Explanation’’. I made two responses to this point. The first response was that the PCE had nothing to do with the argument I gave. The second response was that, if you modify the PCE, you can solve the problem Robert Collins brought up. Neither of these two objections received a response in the last round. Instead, Con falsely accuses me of ignoring an argument he gave, which was that “[a] theist could argue that God is essential to providing a complete explanation of our universe, even though the universe contains no beginning point’’. I don’t understand how I ignored this argument. Con didn’t even bring this argument up in R2. How can I be blamed for ignoring an argument that wasn’t ever brought up? Besides, the argument is completely nonsensical for anyone defending the KCA to accept. A defender of the KCA cannot accept the idea that the universe has no beginning point, because that would contradict the idea of god as a first cause. Con conceded two criticisms of his objection, so this point should go in my favor as well. Let’s talk about the need for a personal cause. Yes, I did ignore Con's argument about necessary conditions and free agents. This is because the two arguments I gave in my last round make his argument irrelevant, as they explain the universe without reference to a personal cause, but a naturalistic one. My first objection to a personal cause was that matter could form without one. The KCA assumes that simultaneous causation is possible. I used the possibility of this to show that three atoms could come into existence without reference to a personal cause. I am not trying to say that three atoms could come into existence at the present moment without reference to a personal cause. I’m saying that, during a time in which there are no atoms, you can get atoms without a personal creator because of simultaneous causation. Con completely ignores this objection during his last round. There are no reasons to think that matter needed a personal cause. This point goes to me. I showed that the Wave Function of the Universe completely demolishes the idea of a personal cause. For one, it states that the probability of a universe such as ours existing is 88%. If god caused the universe, then the probability would be 100%, because any logically possible thing that god wills has to happen. That is one reason to think that a personal cause did not create the universe. Secondly, it describes the universe as originating from a three-dimensional hydersphere that exists outside of time, so it doesn’t need any more of a cause than god does. This explains the origins of the universe without reference to god. Using the WVU, the universe can be explained naturalistically, and a personal cause is shown to be implausible. Con didn’t answer to any of these points. Instead, he tries to use physics to show that a conscious being causes the wave-function to collapse. Honestly, I feel like Con is getting into Deepak Chopra territory. I read his source and I don’t see anything that relates to what he said. I also read his first source, which states that ‘’there is no evidence for Penrose's objective reduction, but the theory is considered testable, and plans exist to carry out a relevant experiment.’’ Con concedes two points in regards to this, and the only thing he can muster up is something that his own sources indicate to lack evidence.Ultimately, Con concedes too much. He concedes that an actual infinite can exist, which contradicts the assumption of the KCA that actual infinites cannot exist. He has failed to adequately respond to my argument from relativity. Con doesn't show that the PCE is relevant to my case, and he doesn't repsond to Smith's restatement of the PCE. Furthermore, Con suggests a way out of the problem that completely contradicts what the KCA says, which is that there was a beginning point for god to cause. I used another assumption of the KCA, simultaneous causation, to show that matter can form without reference to a personal cause. This was completely ignored by Con. I showed that the Wave Function of the Universe explains the universe without reference to a personal creator. I also showed that the WVU indicates god cannot have been the cause. Con drops these points and gambles on an idea that, according to his own source (one), has no evidence.In my opinion, Con's arguments were frail and fell apart easily. Since my arguments stand at the end of the day, I have demonstrated that the KCA is false beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Vote Pro.Vale.Referenceshttp://www.infidels.org...http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.apologeticspress.org...