SPinko Tournament: God probably exists. (Rd. 1)

Opponent’s questions First, why couldn’t the universe come into existence based upon its own force/motion? Answer: The question negates itself. It is not possible for the universe to not have existed, and then based on its own force (non-existent force) create itself. Remember, the argument presented by Aquinas tells us that existence and essence are separate qualities. In order for an entity to be the “first mover”, its essence must factually entail its existence. However, the universe’ essence is made up of contingent parts, and is not wholly simple which would be a condition necessary for the essence and existence to be the same. However moreover, my opponent already concedes that the universe did have a cause; the big bang (albeit he implies that there could have been preexisting energy, but that would still need to hold to logical principles) Second, what moved God? Answer: Nothing. As opposed to the universe which is made up of contingent parts, God is not – as such his essence implies his existence. This is the only way by which factually there can be movement and contingent existences. But moreover, God is outside the realm of our physical law – the universe is bound by these principles, but that does not mean God is. Third, what is the source of God’s energy? Answer: Same as #2. Fourth, why are we going by your definition? Answer:….Cause that’s what you agreed to? Argument from Motion My opponent argues premise 2 is wrong because quantum fluctuations exist, and he provides a card from talkorigins. There are a few issues with this: first, this piece of evidence misunderstands the fact that quantum fluctuations exists within the context of a quantum vacuum. Quantum fluctuations are not caused without prior conditioning, which is what the argument from motion posits. In order for motion and change to exist there must be a prior conditioning. Thus, if you remove the vacuum then you take away the conditions needed for quantum fluctuations. Second, quantum fluctuations are simply indeterminate. This means that there is no serious theory which posits the quantum fluctuations exists from “true nothingness” but rather the cause at this point is indeterminate and cannot be measured. Due to the limits of our mechanics we cannot accurately pinpoint what causes these fluctuations because the rate at which they occur are too fast and interfere with direct measurement. Third, quantum fluctuations affect only the micro and not the macro. If quantum fluctuations could have the ability to create whole masses of universes then it would be probable that on a macro-level our universe should have been interfered with from the amount of quantum fluctuations occurring ever micro-second. Argument from Efficient Causes My opponent argues that I haven’t proven the attributed of God. This was never my burden. The resolution says to prove existence, not qualities or attributes. My opponent says what about God having an infinite regress? This has already been addressed – the Thomistic conception of God posits that this infinite regress does not hinder whether God exists or not, because existence is within God’s essence. God and the universe are not analogous entities – one is made up of contingent parts, the other is not. Voter Now that my opponent has clarified his observations about extraordinary evidence and claims, here is my voter for the round: Both my arguments presented have not been at all refuted by my opponent. My opponent uses false-analogies to try and pin the arguments for the universe onto God. However as evident above, this analogy philosophically misunderstands the Thomistic conception of God. The universe which is made up of contingent parts cannot have its existence within its essence since it isn’t a simple entity. The Thomistic conception of God on the other hand prima facie clears the analogy since it’s a simple conception of God which is factually necessary for motion and efficient causes. The only real rebuttal my opponent presents is that of quantum fluctuations. However, refer to my 3 arguments above why that holds no weight in refuting the propositions. Since it is the last round do not let my opponent bring new evidence to the debate, since there is no way I can response. Thank you :D