Creationism vs. Atheism

Thank you CON for your comments in the last round. You state in your argument that, "I would like to start by saying that I accept the first and third premises." Meaning to say that you accept: A.A thing does not make itself[1]. B.That which is composite had/has a beginning[1]. Which essentially breaks down your argument by default into an argument for an infinite regress of causes for we have to admit that even if you claim "we do not know what happened before approximately 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang" well we know there was "something" in existence at that time, and since a thing doesn"t make itself, and because whatever was in existence at that time must have in some way been composite, it must have been preceded by some causes that brought it about. Therefore, whether you engage premise 1 or premise 2 together or separate, we come to the conclusion that whatever existed at 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang is caused by something prior to it. Now we have essentially distilled your argument to an infinite regress of non-eternal causes. That"s problematic, however, by your own intuition and you even contradict yourself in stating the following: "This may be a little petty, but what if you had an infinite number of finites? However, this is not my main objection to this premise." You then state the following: "My main objection is when PRO made the claims, "this chain of causes cannot go on ad-infinitum,"" So is it, or is it not your main objection? You contradict yourself, because I am sure that by your own reasoning you must recognize the absurdity in arguing an infinite regress of causes! You even allude to it yourself: "While an infinite chain does seem absurd inductively, as PRO is actually making the positive claim that it is impossible, I would like him to provide evidence in support of his claim." Based on your own comments, I take it CON is, albeit in a confused manner, arguing for an infinite series of causes going back forever. However, any well versed mathematician knows that no finite series can ever reach infinity. It is indeed true that theoretical infinity is used in mathematics to express certain concepts, such as a limit as it "approaches" infinity or the limit 1/x as x goes towards 0 (from positive side) is "infinity". However no finite number ever in actuality "approaches" infinity. The number 1 is no closer to infinity that the number 1,000,000,000,000.[2] Otherwise stated, the countable causes that can be expressed in a series as: (end-effect) cause #1 < cause #2 < cause #3 < cause #4, thus begins a finite series that no matter how many causes back it goes will never in actuality reach infinity and it never in actuality even "approaches" infinity. Meaning to say that if you are indeed arguing for an infinite regress of causes (which by implication you are) you would have to have an infinity of finite/non-eternal causes between the chasm of no beginning to the end manifested point of the universe that we experience, which is indeed an impossibility as no sum of finite cause-and-effects sequences would ever aggregate "infinite causes" which is what would be required for the universe to be manifest in the present time. To quote yet another perspective from the commentaries on Duties of the Heart, by Rabbi Bachya ibn Paquda:[2] Infinite regress of causes is sometimes invoked to negate the need for a first eternal cause. So instead of saying the universe is eternal or that it was created by something eternal, we can simply say that the universe existed and evolved from one form to another, in an infinite chain of non-eternal forms. However this is logically incoherent. If we think of causes and effects as links in a chain, then consider that every link in the chain depends on the previous link. Hence, the chain as a whole depends on something which does not even exist. As an illustration, consider a chain hanging down from above almost touching the floor. One asks, what is the chain fastened to on the other end? Answer: The next link. And what is that tied to? Answer: The one after that. And that one? Answer: The next one, and so on... I think it can be seen evidently that it doesn't matter whether there are a million or infinite links - there is nothing to hold up the chain. Without some tangible, real support the chain cannot hold even if it is infinitely long. So too here, if you don't have something eternal, then a chain of non-eternal links will not help to explain the existence of something in the present, even if it is infinitely long. Furthermore, the result of an infinite regress is indeterminable unless there is some eternal source. As an illustration consider a square room with mirrored walls reflecting a picture of a human being in an infinite regress simulation. If there is no source, i.e. a real human being then the picture being reflected infinitely is indeterminable. Why should it be a human face, or a chicken, or whatever? The only possible solution would be if there is no picture in the mirrors. So too here, unless there is "something" eternal, nothing would exist in the present. The infinite regress is just an attempt to push off the same problem indefinitely, never solving it. You posed the challenge to provide reasoned support for the impossibility of an infinite chain, and the above is certainly sufficient for any reasoned mind to reach the conclusion that it is in actuality (not in theoretical math) not possible. You then proceed to argue the following: "Please note that simply describing conditions that seem to require such a creator is not sufficient, as it would be an Argument from Incredulity Fallacy to declare that such a creator MUST be the answer to a particular problem." The arguments posed above are not an Argument from Incredulity, but are based on the above truths of the three premises stated above. And, indeed those three premises converge to a single truth, which is that there must be a FIRST, ETERNAL, and NON-COMPOSITE beginning to all of creation. Just as singularity must precede plurality, so too a single eternal and non-composite entity must precede all of creation; these are sound well-reasoned proofs. They do no rely on the ignorance of the audience but lay down true premises that when taken to their limit must lead to the conclusion of One Infinite Creator. To address one more point of yours, you state the following: "The point is that we do not know anything about the time that close to the Big Bang, so PRO will have to provide evidence if he is going to speak on the matter." No-body need know what "exactly" transpired that close to the Big Bang to ascertain the veracity of the arguments laid out above; we know there was "something" and it is impossible that this something was/is uncaused. Just as we know with 100% certainty CON must have had ancestors 2500 years ago. How do we know this? Because CON has an "end-effect" here today of his existence. Even though we have no records of CONs ancestors 2500 years ago, we don"t know who they were, where they lived, what they eat, who their immediate offspring were, and despite that lack of evidence of their existence, we know "something" must have existed or else CON would not be here. So too, we know "something" must have preceded the 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang or else whatever existed at that very moment couldn"t exist. Your argument is ultimately one of the logical fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance (and flawed in that structure too)[4]: "The point is that we do not know anything about the time that close to the Big Bang." This is not true since we know there was some cause that must have proceeded "that time." And through this obvious point, and in combination with premise 1, 2, and 3, we must reach the conclusion that there is a Non-Composite, Infinite, Uncaused, "Causer." End Points: Premise 1 and Premise 3 have been accepted by both PRO and CON. Additionally, Premise 2 has been sufficiently demonstrated above, it is indeed an impossibility in reality to have an infinity of finites. Funny enough CON states regarding an infinity of finites, "However, this is not my main objection to this premise." and then claims: "My main objection is when PRO made the claims, "this chain of causes cannot go on ad-infinitum." Which is a contradiction; is it, or is it not your objection? And if it is not your objection then you by default accept premise 2. If it is your objection, you reject premise 2 and claim an infinity of non-eternal causes (which is an infinity of finites!). Above I have demonstrated the veracity of premise 2 with sound theoretical and mathematical arguments which highlight the impossibility of such a reality. CON even alludes to the absurdity of this in his rebuttal by stating "While an infinite chain does seem absurd inductively"." The burden of proof now lies with CON, since you accepted premise 1 and 3, you now must prove that in actuality an infinity of finites is a possibility" CON then argues I have constructed an Argument from Incredulity, however, this is not true either, as when the 3 fundamental premises are combined and examined to their logical extreme they yield the precise conclusion of a Non-Composite, Infinite, Uncaused, "Causer." It is not a guess, nor a leap in logic, nor does it rely on some statement of "well, what else could it be?" It is defined and pointed and eliminates all possibilities except for an entity that is truly unbounded, singular, and eternal. Call this entity G-d, First Cause, the One, or whatever label you wish to claim, but this singularity MUST EXIST. I have not argued that it looks like the universe needs a Creator, but I am arguing the universe NEEDS one. And I have thusly provided concrete logical evidence for all of my claims. I now respectfully turn to CON for his closing arguments, and I sincerely thank him for participating in this debate. (Sources in comment section, as I am out of room...)