Team Debate: God Exists

R1) Pool table argument Objection 1: The ‘Law of Causality’ The pool table argument attempts to demonstrate that there is one uncaused cause (UC). The question that follows is obvious--this uncaused cause is a cause of what? This objection holds that the UC may be a cause of anything, but not the universe. The universe having a cause lacks coherence, since causality itself is implausible sans time, since the passage of time is required for anything to coherently ‘happen’. Eternalism also renders temporal change incoherent, since change does not ontologically occur in eternalism, thus time cannot have been caused. Objection 2: Free Will & Intelligence Pro asserts that the UC “act[ed] freely”, asserting that there was nothing prior to the cause, thus it had to act freely. This is based on the assumption that the uncaused cause is the cause of the universe, which is dubious in light of objection one. Thus, some aspect of natural laws must have influenced the cause, thus the cause cannot have acted freely or did not necessarily have a form of intelligence. Objection 3: Predetermined Cause Pro then argues that, the UC must be free, as the cause cannot be predetermined. The problem is that, Pro is only taking into account predetermination by external causes. However, if the UC is predetermined by its own nature, then there doesn’t need to be anything external to UC. Therefore, the first premise of the subargument is false and by extension the second one is too. R2) Kalam cosmological argument a) Causal Premise Pro’s defense of P1 commits the fallacy of composition, viz. the assumption that since all things within the universe have causes, the whole universe must have a cause. The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that the whole has a property because all parts of the whole have that property, e.g. stating H2O is a gas in room temperature when H2 and O2 are gases at room temperature [1][2]. As mentioned, causality maintains coherence only in the presence of time--sans time and natural laws, we no longer have any reason to believe things need causes. Causality of the universe is not required, since hypotheses such as the zero-energy universe remain logically consistent with existing laws, defying the causal principle in the universe’s beginning [3]. Pro is inconsistent, since their defense of P2 appeals to the Hawking singularity theorem [Pro’s 4. source]. However, scientific laws all break down at singularity, the cannot consistently claim that science justifies P1 [8]. b) The Universe Began to Exist The second premise assumes a presentism ontology of time and the A-series to be accurate, since eternalism and the B-series would allow for a non-classical interpretation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, that would allow the universe to exist as a tenseless four-dimensional block--not one that existed forever, but one that cannot have had a finite beginning in time coherently either, as Craig himself concedes [4][5]. In other words, the universe would come into existence ex nihilo, but not begin to exist. As demonstrated in the previous round, eternalism and the B-series are entailed by special relativity [7], and Craig’s defenses in an attempt to reconcile presentism with relativity have received major criticism [6]. Pro’s interpretation of the Big Bang is highly flawed--the Big Bang does not state that the universe began to exist, merely that it began expanding 13.8 billion years ago [9]. The singularity model of the Big Bang, to which Pro is appealing, also predicts that the physical laws are not valid at the singularity, e.g. the causal principle [10]. R3) The fine-tuning argument a) Fine-Tuned Constants Pro provides examples of finely-tuned constants, but it seems none of these constants are actually ‘fine-tuned’, thus Pro has flawed speculation. The two examples of fine tuning have to do with the gravitational constant and the likelihood of the universe starting out with low entropy. Pro’s own source says that entropy is not an example of fine-tuning. Roger Penrose writes, “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? … What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities--but not at final singularities--and this seems to be what confinesthe Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” [11] (note that Penrose doesn’t literally mean creator, it’s a thought experiment) Penrose’s assumptions on fine-tuning are also based on the assumption that the universe is closed, but that is dubious in light of observations of the CMBR [12]. The gravitational constant does not need to be fine-tuned either. For a constant to need tuning, it must first be dimensionless. This means the end result doesn’t depend on the units of measurement you use. The units you use are irrelevant because “[t]hey are arbitrary human conventions.” [13] The gravitational constant is not a dimensionless constant [14], thus “depends on the system of units being used and, likewise, is not a universal constant. This is because the unit of mass is arbitrary and G will depend on the choice of units.” [15] b) Alternate Explanations Michael Hurben argues that the constants cannot have been ‘tuned’ to anything else, since their tuning is out of physical necessity [16]. Pro asserts that random chance is ‘unreasonable’, but there is no justification for the same. Thus, I shall demonstrate why random chance is not necessarily unreasonable. In a hypothetical situation, imagine someone tosses a pack of 52 cards sideways, such that they get a curved line of cards--the order they get can always be considered precise, and while it may be improbable that it occurred of random chance or physical necessity, it did. This is primarily because the metaphysical possibility of intelligent design is not justified. Theodore Drange argues a similar analogy using dice to refute the fine-tuning argument [17]. R4) Intelligent design a) Genetic Information The essence of Pro’s argument is that it is implausible for the transfer of genetic information to occur naturally. This is highly flawed. Evolution can also produce new genetic information. Genomes with terminal protein are ‘vehicles’ of information transfer in genes [18]. According to a study published in the Scientific American, biologists *observed* the creation of new genes and genetic information via. evolution [19]. “In a study in the journal Science, Andersson, Roth and their colleagues demonstrate the process in lab-grown Salmonella enterica. They grew one strain missing a gene key for expressing the essential amino acid tryptophan. The strain needed to rely on another gene, which had a primary job but also a weak ability to take on the missing gene's work. The researchers encouraged the bacteria to duplicate the overworked gene, and its copies gathered mutations—some of which enhanced tryptophan production. At the end of a year's time (3,000 generations later) the bacteria had one gene that did the original job and a second that had evolved a new primary function—manufacturing tryptophan.” [20] b) Irreducible Complexity We have no reason to believe this ‘irreducible complexity’ could not be formed via. abiogenesis and natural selection. The evolution of ATP synthase is an example of modular evolution, during which two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality [21]. The ATP synthase is thought to have formed early in evolutionary history, at a point where all species with DNA did not necessarily have ATP synthase [22]. The most widely accepted theory for the origin of ATP synthase is the modular evolution theory. “The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.” [23] As mentioned, new genetic information can be produced via. evolution. The origin of DNA emerged from RNA, and RNA nucleotides have been produced abiotically [24][25]. The resolution is negated. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, p 183. 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. Ibid. 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. Ibid. 15. Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p 87. 16. http://tinyurl.com... 17. http://tinyurl.com... 18. http://tinyurl.com... 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. Ibid. 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. Ibid. 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com...