There Is an External Cause of the Universe

Thanks to my opponent for the invitation! (Note to the voter: My arguments will center around logic, not sources. While I will certainly use sources where appropriate, I may find it unnecessary to do so. I'd rather not write in irrelevant sources just to avoid negative votes; so PLEASE do _not_ vote either of us down for sources if they are unimportant in this debate.) Concerning the definitions, I found the definition of "universe" to be somewhat strange because it includes the word "universe" in the definition itself, but considering rule #2 (no semantics) I think we all know basically what we mean by "universe;" i.e. that thing that we live in and smell, touch, taste, etc.; thus, I'm fairly certain what counts as "the universe" will not be a major issue since we all know basically what is being talked about. My opponent has mentioned in the comments that transcendent causes and God are examples of things external to the universe. With that I'll move into my primary argument. I. Infinite Causal Probability (Plagiarism note: This is a modified argument of my memory of some philosopher who based her/his work off of Hume. I'm afraid I cannot recall the philosopher's name at this time, and preliminary internet browsing has not lead me to the article I read. I am not trying to plagiarize, and I hope to give credit to this person when/if I discover her/his name.) 1. First we must recognize the epistemological possibility that any particular past might not have existed. That is to say, we need to recognize that there is at least one possibility that the entire universe was created 5 minutes ago. a. One may ask: "But what about my memories of 6 minutes ago? Surly this is impossible." However, one's entire mind might have been created 5 minutes ago equipped with all of one's memories of previous states, including 6 minutes ago. The same analysis may account for all of the previous scientific data, which are based on empiricism. All of the evidence and memories of evidence may have been suddenly caused 5 minutes ago. Certainly the scientists would not be able to distinguish between this 5 minute universe and the 5 billion year universe, so both may be equally-explicable for the evidence. b. While perhaps this notion is far-fetched, the hypothesis that the universe was created 5 minutes ago is certainly at least a possibility. In fact, the hypothesis that the universe was created 5 minutes ago accounts for all of the same evidence as the null hypothesis (that the universe was _not_ created 5 minutes ago). c. The possibility of the world being created exactly 5 minutes ago represents one possibility. However, this same analysis may be repeated for all "moments" of time or "instances" of causation. Each particular "moment" or "instance" represents its own, equally-valid possibility. Because there are an infinite number of moments in even a nanosecond, the number of possibilities of creation over billions of years are clearly infinite. d. In contrast, the hypothesis that the universe was _never_ created (as my opponent's position suggests) represents (optimistically) only 1 possibility. This 1 possibility is not in any way qualitatively superior to these other hypotheses (and in fact might be qualitatively inferior, as I will point out shortly). e. Thus, there is an infinitely high possibility that the universe was suddenly created, whereas the notion that the universe always existed is one or less. f. Under the infinite hypothesis, either something caused the universe to exist or nothing caused the universe to exist (despite the fact that it did). If something caused it, this is definitely an external cause. If nothing caused it, or rather Nothing caused it, this Nothingness must also transcend the universe and also must be considered external to the universe, and therefore an external cause. g. Thus, there is an infinitely strong possibility that "There Is an External Cause of the Universe," while there is at most one possibility of there being no external cause of the universe. The balance of probability is infinitely in the favor of the former. This alone warrants infinitely sufficient proof of the existence of an external cause to the universe. II: Infinite Regress a. The notion of there being a non-created infinitely internal universe is far beyond the scope of empiricism (such as science). No matter how far back the evidence goes for the universe, this evidence is not sufficient for an eternal presence. Certainly, physicists may postulate about events long preceding the Big Bang; however, the posit that the universe was always around would need to extend its evidence long before that. In summary, no matter how far back a scientist is able to postulate for the existence of the universe, there is no evidence that the universe is infinitely old. b. Some physicists may postulate about time in their equations, but their theories can only be applied to the scope of the modern world. While the models themselves may apply to time "infinitely old," there is no possibility to acquire evidence to confirm or deny that time works this way infinitely long ago, for the same analysis as (a). c. In the absence of empirical evidence, we must take up basic mathematics and logic. Let us pretend, for the sake of illustration, that we are a computer program trying to calculate the possibility of the hypothesis that the universe is infinitely old being true. Start at Time 1: was the universe created or not created? Not created. On to time 2: Was the universe created or not created? Not created. This analysis would go on forever. The possibility of there being an "infinitely old" universe is therefore infinitely small: That is, approaching zero in magnitude. d. Because there is absolutely no evidence possible for an infinitely old universe, the hypothesis that there is an infinitely small world must be equal to each hypothesis of instant creation. Additionally, because there is literally an infinitely small possibility (for all intents and purposes equal to zero) for there being in infinitely old universe, the hypothesis of there being an infinitely non-created universe must be rejected. III. "Common Sense" a. The previous arguments should have been sufficient to prove that the universe has an external cause; however, because my opponent might bring in non-scientific analysis I thought I'd be proactive. Please not that even though I am arguing from the position of "Common Sense," I am not necessarily saying that "common sense" is more important than reason. b. A universe that creates itself defies all conception. Something creating itself defies both logic and practical reason. For something to be created it must first not exist. For something to create it must first exist. Therefore, something creating itself is illogical and beyond reason. Additionally, it doesn't make sense to most people. Additionally, please note that a universe creating itself and a universe being created by an external cause are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. c. Infinite regression defies all conception: One cannot possibly conceive of a universe that has existed for an infinite period. However, the universe being created is easily conceivable. You might think that infinite regression is also a problem for creation; however, this is not the case. For an external being to cause the universe, its form might transcend the form of the universe, and thus would not be limited to the same rules or same temporal logic as the universe. A God, for example, might reside outside of normal time-space and therefore has always existed. Or, some other unknown possibility might occur for the presence of God. In any case, a human epidemiological limit is understandable in creation; however, it is less understandable in "infinitely old" universe theory. A universe transcending the rules of the universe makes less sense. Additionally, a universe that is "beyond" the universe would be an external cause. Therefore, the only possibility left is a universe that is infinitely old. That is not the case with God, who might have any number of explanations of the creation of the universe and how it fits into temporal-causal understanding. IV: Ethics/Psychology I have already demonstrated why it is certainly correct that the universe was caused by something external to it. Now, I will show why it is important to believe this, in case my opponent argues along that route. a. Psychological benefits 1. Should the universe have been created by an external force, it is not a great leap to suggest that some time and effort was put into its design, especially if the universe was made in the last few seconds. Therefore, this metaphysical perspective opens the door for humans to feel loved. This has been empirically shown to have a plethora of psychological benefits, including longevity [1, 2, 3]. 2. Additionally, the model of loving others could foster/model further love a cyclical pattern. 3. People might feel that they are special and important, which might help decrease the risk of depression and suicide [4]. b. Ethics 1. It's true. 2. Humility. Acknowledging that we do not know when the universe was created, or even whether or not it was created seconds ago adds to humanities humility. This would foster the realization that humanity is not superior to nature but part of it. This might help stop their devaluing the non-human experience, which would lead to lower pollution and the more ethical treatment of non-human animals. 3. Responsibility: Since humanity was created, it might help inspire compassionate responsibility in humans who learn this information. [1] http://www.tandfonline.com... [2] http://positivepsychologynews.com... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [4] http://www.sciencedirect.com...