God vs. Naturalism

I thank salam.morcos for one of the most interesting debates I’ve had on DDO, and definitely the toughest. R1) Arguments for an initial being a) Pool Table Argument Pro rejects the metaphysical possibility of actual infinities via. Hilbert’s hotel, also used by philosopher W.L. Craig to defend the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument. On this, analytic philosopher Michael Martin writes, “[Hilbert’s hotel is] unsound or show[s] at most that actual infinities have odd properties. This latter fact is well known, however, and shows nothing about whether it is logically impossible to have actual infinities in the real world.” [1] Additionally, physicist and mathematician John D. Barrow writes, “Einstein’s theory [of general relativity] predicts that if you fell into a black hole, and there are many black holes in our Galaxy and nearby, you would encounter an infinite density at the centre. These infinities, if they do exist, would be actual infinities.” [13] Since general relativity is true and these infinite density ‘points’, or singularities, do exist [14], actual infinities exist. Now, Pro asserts that an uncaused cause cannot have had anything existing before it by definition. This is entirely incorrect. An uncaused cause cannot have had anything that caused it, but that in no way implies that something before it may have existed without being caused. This is based on the assumption that everything has a cause, and is entirely incorrect. The universe could have been uncaused, since the causal principle breaks down external to the universe, where there is neither time nor are there physical laws. Sans physical laws as well as time we no longer have reason to believe things need causes, since we have no time directionality, nor physical constraint. b) Corroborating Evidence The universe ‘causing itself’ is via. a physical process known as simultaneous causation, advocated by many philosophers. But the universe coming into existence without a cause is with no reason. The universe creating itself does involve a cause--the universe itself is the cause of itself, but the stance I’m taking is there being absolutely no cause, i.e. the universe literally coming into existence from nothing. As mentioned, Pro seems unable to conceive of it, thus is attributing a cause to an uncaused universe--the universe itself, and that is not what I am suggesting. Therefore, Pro is begging the question. To assume the universe must have a finite cause is to assume the A-theory of time, but majority of evidence is against it, and it is unlikely the A-theory of time is true, via. the Andromeda paradox and relativity of simultaneity [2]. R2) Arguments for intelligent design a) Fine-Tuned Universe Ande Linde’s model is a possible explanation for fine-tuning, as plausible as the God hypothesis. Various other theories that fully reconcile with quantum physics have been proposed, e.g. classical scale invariance studied via. perturbation theory [3]. All I need to do to refute the fine-tuning argument is to show physical necessity has equal probability of explanation with intelligent design, and God is not the only solution to this problem, thus it does not argue for God. Pro drops Hurben’s likely explanation via. the anthropic principle that there are no other possible change in the ratio of constants, thus it may be physically necessary for the constants to be in these specific ratios. b) Abiogenesis Since this is Pro’s contention, if I can affirm an equal probability of abiogenesis and the God hypothesis, I can use Occam’s razor to dismiss the claim. “Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.” [4] Pyrimidine nucleotides of RNA have been abiotically synthesized. Pro questions how polynucleotides of RNA could have formed via. ribose, but these polynucleotides can form abiotically via. inorganic clays that couple multiple monomers into linear chains. Marco Franchi and Enzo Gallori write, “[F]indings indicate that primordial genetic molecules adsorbed on clay minerals would have been protected against degrading agents present in the environment and would have been in the right conditions to undergo evolutionary processes.” [5] Thus, abiogenesis is possible. Even if abiogenesis wasn’t an explanation, it does not signify that God created life. C1) A caused universe is incoherent a) Requirements for Causation This requires a highly specific definition of ‘universe’ to be valid. The universe is generally interpreted to be all of existence itself--i.e., all of space, time, matter, antimatter, and energy. There is, according to standard interpretations of physics, nothing outside the universe or multiverse. As physicists Michael Zeilik and Stephen A. Gregory write, the universe is “[t]he totality of all space and time; all that is, has been, and will be.” [6] Thus, the universe encompasses all temporality, so it is incoherent to conceive of a form of “timeliness” outside the universe, and highly improbable. Since the debate is about probability, it is highly improbable the universe was caused. The “tiny bit of energy” can literally come out of nothing, as Filipenko says. As mentioned, sans physical constraints and time directionality, the causal principle breaks down. When I said the vacuum could be ‘nothing’, the vacuum is a part of the universe, and it was not caused and literally came out of nothing. Thus, somewhere, some part of the universe did come out of nothing. Vilenkin stated they face the problem of a cosmic beginning, and *not* a cosmic cause. Pro frequently begs the question by confusing the words ‘beginning’ and ‘caused’. Pro commits a fallacy of appeal to authority when quoting Lisa Grossman [7], as I have presented *evidence* for an uncaused universe’s possibility. The zero-energy universe hypothesis allows for the universe to arise out of nothing, or out of an uncaused quantum vacuum--the vacuum is, nonetheless, uncaused [11]. A ‘metaphysical form of causality’ is also highly improbable, because then it would have likely produced a metaphysical product, and not a physical product such as the universe. Pro does not contest that time is required for causality, thus another form of “timeliness” is Pro’s positive assertion, which is improbable. b) Eternalism My assertion that eternalism is true is an inductive claim, since the resolution only requires an inference to the most *probable* explanation. There is a philosophical consensus and more evidence to support eternalism. There are three options--belief in presentism, possibilism or eternalism, and eternalism is the most likely of these via. the Andromeda paradox and planes of simultaneity [8][9]. If the B-series, four-dimensionalism, and eternalism are true, which is highly probable, causality is implausible, and, thus, inductively false. Next, Pro strawmans my argument by misrepresenting eternalism with a catastrophic misconception--eternalism is not the idea that the universe has been existing forever, eternalism is the idea that the past, present, and future are non-distinct and equally real temporally [10]. C2) Atemporal minds are impossible I have addressed this new form of ‘timeliness’, and it being immensely improbable. As for an instantaneous process, a process of a mind taking t0 is incoherent. A process is a systematic series of changes individually that contribute to a conclusion over a period of time by definition [12]. God still exists presently, thus his process of intelligence is greater than t0 if present, thus it cannot be present. Thus, the contention succeeds in negating. C3) Occam’s razor Thus, I have refuted the entirety of Pro’s case, and the God hypothesis is an additional complexity that is not required. Thus, I negate. Vote Con. 1. Michael Martin (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p 104. 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. http://inspirehep.net... 4. http://www.wired.com... 5. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 6. Michael Zeilik and Stephen A. Gregory (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics, glossary 31. 7. http://web.stanford.edu... 8. Roger Penrose (1999). The Emperor’s New Mind, p 393. 9. http://en.wikipedia.org... 10. Theo Kuipers (2007). General Philosophy of Science, p 326. 11. http://www.astrosociety.org... 12. Google (“define process”) 13. http://plus.maths.org... 14. http://fqxi.org...