The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

In this debate, I will show why the argument as presented does not establish the conclusion it tries to establish. This result can be achieved by either showing the argument is invalid, or by showing that at least one of the premises has not been justified as true. Note how I do not have to falsify any of the premises; just undermine the premise(s), or the support in question. Premise 1 of the Cosmological Argument Pro claims that an infinite regression of instances of change in reality is impossible. However, Pro gave literally no support for this notion. This means, Pro has committed a bare-assertion fallacy[1] in the first round. Since we were left with no reason to believe this premise is actually true; it can be disregarded. Premise 2 of the Cosmological ArgumentMy opponent asserts that there must be a First Principle in reality before any instances of change in reality occurred. Once more, we were left with absolutely no reason to believe this First Principle is actually true. For example, Philosopher Quentin Smith argues that it is not true, and that there actually could not be a "First Principle"[2]. This is because the singularity at t=0 as predicted by The Big Bang theory is a mathematically impossible state. This singularity posits density that is some number "n" over zero, and temperature which is some number "n" over zero (which is mathematically impermissible). This means, there would be no first state for God to cause even if we assume a finite amount of years in the past. One could argue that the instant after t=0 would be the first state if we delete t=0, however there is no moment directly after t=0 as there is a real number between any two real numbers. This means that any state you could point to as the "first state" would actually be preceded by another state no matter how small it is (one could keep dividing by halves, never reaching a first state). This means, that according to Quentin Smith's argument, there is no First Principle even if one accepts that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. This is because the deletion of the singularity at t=0 is logically and mathematically necessary. The point of mentioning Quentin Smiths argument is to show that it is not at all obvious that there needs to be a First Principle, as many philosophers actually argue against this very notion notion (including Richard Carrier, Wes Morrison ect. ). Therefore, Pro has not met his burden of proof in this regard. Premise 3 of the Cosmological ArgumentThe argument here is that the First Principle of reality must be either be sentient or non-sentient. The problem here is that the First Principle has not even been established as true in the first place. However, if this First Principle is true, then I would agree that the First Principle must either be sentient or non-sentient. This is self-evidently a true-dichotomy. Premise 4 of the Cosmological ArgumentThe idea here is that a non-sentient First Principle is incapable of willing itself to activation, and causing instances of change in reality. Pro claims that all examples of non-sentient mechanisms in nature show that they simply exist, or are caused to activate, and do not merely activate on their own. However, this is the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy[3]. The appeal to ignorance fallacy presented by my opponent follows this formula:There is no evidence for P. Therefore, not P. Just because we have no examples of P, does not mean P cannot be the case. However, Pro is arguing that because we have no examples on non-sentience that acts "on its own" without the need for will, that this cannot be the case. Thus, the fallacy charge by me is justified. However, is it even true that we have no examples of the change in question? I would say, that this is not at all obvious. For example, a nucleus of Uranium-238 could sit there, motionless and unchanging for many years. Then, one day, it decays. Nothing changed in the external environment, so what caused it to suddenly decay after all of that time? Nothing, as the environments have been tested time and time again with no sufficient cause found where there should be; making the event in question spontaneous[4] according to the most adhered to views involving Quantum Physics. This means, that according to the most widely held interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (indeterministic interpretations), we have examples counter to Pro in which events occur spontaneously without a sufficient cause, and without need for sentience. This propery undermines Pro's argument here even further. Premise 5 of the Cosmological Argument My opponent says that the sentient First Principle is capable of willing instances of change in reality. Only a sentient, self-aware being can imagine a reality outside of the reality that already exists. I would agree that only sentient self-aware beings can imagine a reality outside of the reality that already exists. However, Pro gave no good reason to think that "will" or "imagination" is required to explain anything relevant here. Thus, this premise from Pro is rather trivial. Conclusion of the Cosmological ArgumentThis conclusion is based on the assumption that the premises have been justified properly. Since I have shown this is not the case; this conclusion is rather meaningless to say the least. Pro's Analogy Pertaining to Quantum MechanicsThis is just a re-hashing of the First Principle argument. However, it seems as if my opponent is describing String Theory more than Quantum Mechanics. Regardless, if there must be a first "vibration" (which is a process) then I would argue that God requires a first "thought" (as a "thought" by definition is a mental process/ activity)[5]. This would mean God's mind must have began based off of the same logic. If Pro tries to claim this rule only applies to the universe without warrant, then the special pleading fallacy[6] will have been committed. ConclusionPro failed to meet his burden of proof, as his claims either either unjustified or flat out false. Since the burden of proof is on Pro to show that this argument succeeds, as it stands, the resolution has clearly been negated. Sources[1] . http://fallacies.findthedata.org...[2] . http://www.infidels.org... [3] . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[6] . http://www.nizkor.org...