Team Debate: God Exists

Defense of Contention 1: Pool Table Argument Objection 1: Law of Causality. Con argues that the universe cannot be caused because causality requires time, and they infer that time can only exist within this universe. But why is that the case? We’ve already shown scientists who don’t hold this opinion [1]. So this objection is invalid; time and causality can exist prior to the beginning of the universe. Objection 2: Free will & Intelligence. According to Con, this object is based on Objection 1 stating it’s “dubious in light of objection one”. But Objection 1 that time doesn’t exist prior to the universe is what’s dubious, and therefore this is object fails. Also Con asserts that “some aspect of natural laws must have influenced the cause”. Con makes a truth claim by saying that natural laws must have influenced the cause without providing evidence why that must be the case. This is a bare assertion and should also be dismissed. Objection 3: Predetermined Cause. According to Con, an uncaused cause can be predetermined by its own nature. But that argument is ludicrous. If it was predetermined (even by its own natured) then it’s uncaused. So no! An uncaused cause cannot be predetermined, otherwise it would be caused. This objection fails. We argue that Con failed to refute the Pool Table argument which supports the God hypothesis. Defense of Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument a) Causal Premise: Con argues that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition. But that’s a clear misunderstanding of the fallacy of composition [2]. We would commit this fallacy if we argue that because every part of the universe has a cause, then the universe as a whole has a cause. Please read R2, and you will see no suggestion of the kind. What we argued was “What begins to exist must have a cause”. The fallacy doesn’t apply here and therefore Con’s argument fails. Ask yourself this question: “An object appears! Isn’t it only reasonable to assume that something caused it to appear? Imagine someone tells you: Nothing caused it to appear. It just did!” Again, Con argue that time didn’t exist before the universe, but we’re shown that it’s very reasonable to believe that time could exist prior to this universe. This argument is mute. b) The Universe Began to Exist Con argues that scientific laws breakdown at singularities. But this is not a challenge to P2: The universe began to exist. Con argues that the universe didn’t begin to exist, but began expanding. While we agree that the universe began expanding, to say that the universe didn’t begin to exist is unreasonable as the scientific community agrees that the universe had a space-time beginning, which Con also agrees to. Con then pleads to Eternalism against KCA argument which is based on A-theory. We showed in R2 that Eternalism is a disputed theory and is not necessarily true. There is no reason to assume that A-theory is false. Dean Zimmerman writes about this: "[When] appealing to findings from empirically well-grounded disciplines, philosophers face a strong temptation to overstate their case[…] I fear that some B-theorists have succumbed to the temptation, […] the presentist’s conflict with either version of Relativity is shallow, since the presentist’s manifold can satisfy the same geometrical description as a B-theorist’s manifold, and afford explanations of all the same phenomena in precisely the same style. In these circumstances, how could appeal to SR or GR justify the frequent announcements that the A-theory–B-theory dispute has been “settled by physics, not philosophy”?" [3] We showed that Eternalism means that there is no cause and effect and that the proven and tested theory that "every action has a reaction" [4] is not true either. Because according to Eternalism, the effect already exists with the cause. There is no time (only passage of time) which is necessary for causation according to Con. We reiterate what we stated about Eternalism in R2 “deny[ing] scientific facts for the purpose of proving a philosophical claim is unreasonable and ad hoc.” Just because a possibility is theoretically possible does not allow us to argue in favor of it over and against known scientific principles or laws which are based on demonstrable evidence. In the scientific world, evidence which has stood the scrutiny of even minimal scientific methodology (i.e. observation, experimentation, etc.) always trumps hypothetical possibility. Defense of Contention 3: Fine Tuning a) Fine tuned constants. Con’s arguments are straw man arguments. If one of the constants we presented is not fine tuned, that doesn’t change the fact that fine tuned constants exist. Here is how an unbiased physics article explains it: “In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural” [5] b) Alternate explanation: Con argues that Hurben argues that fine tuning is out of necessity. Con used a biased source instead (infidels.org) of referring to Hurben’s work, and the source doesn’t explain why these constants are necessary. What Hurben argued that there isn’t enough reason to believe that the existence of our universe is improbable [6]. This is an argument from ignorance, not scientific evidence. However scientists argue that "the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise" [7]. So Con’s argument fails. Con then argues against randomness, with the example that if you through a deck. Con claims that “the order they get can always be considered precise, and while it may be improbable that it occurred of random chance or physical necessity” But Con used a terrible and an inaccurate example! The difference is that there are 52! (or 8.1 x 1067) outcomes that are possible. However our universe is so precise that any other order would make it impossible for any star to exist! Therefore Con’s example is irrelevant. The same applied to the dice analogy by Drange. Defense of Contention 4: Intelligent Design a) Genetic information. Con missed the point entirely on genetic information. Genetic information existed since the beginning of the very first cell, and in essence since evolution. Therefore Con’s response cannot answer how complex genetic information can exist from the beginning. Con’s argument fails to refute the argument. Con also argues that our essential claim is that it is “implausible for the transfer of genetic information to occur naturally.” On the contrary, chiefly our claim is that it is impossible for natural processes to give rise to genetic information. DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information. Information is represented (i.e. formulated, transmitted, stored) like a language with instructions and meanings. When Alan Turing broke the Enigma code, no one could argue that such a sophisticate code was not designed [8]. DNA code is so sophisticated with individual four symbols (A, G, C, T) are assembled into combinations like words or code [9]. These codes actually bear semantic information, and most remarkably, carry intended actions. Con claims information has been observed to be produced via “evolution.” However, what Con fails to understand is that the example given of Salmonella enterica involves the fulfilment of the role of another gene lost to mutational deletion [10], or in this case, man-caused deletion. by a pre-existing gene. A strain of bacteria which is intelligently manipulated to duplicate a particular gene, while hardly being a realistic natural scenario, is not evidence of the production of novel genetic information via natural processes. The key is that the gene which”evolved” the ability to manufacture tryptophan already had the capacity to do so. The fact that certain mutations lead to an inordinate production of what it was already able to manufacture does not count as creating new information. If we copied and pasted your argument, would you say that we have produced new information, in terms of the content of the message? Of course not! b) Irreducible Complexity. Amazingly, Con argues against irreducible complexity with a “handwaiving” appeal to what he calls theory. We’re sorry but a theory with zero evidential support is not a theory, at best it is an unsupported hypothesis. Con has failed to address the argument. If this was really evidence, and not speculation, why would Dawkins writes about this, that it’s "the kind of thing that sounds promising as an ingredient for the origin of life" [11]. Why would Dawkins, with all his bias, consider the possibility of intelligent design (by other ancestors) [12]? That’s because these theories have zero evidential support. Conclusion We have shown that Con failed to refute any of our arguments. We however were able to show that Con’s argument are improbable in R2. Here’s a summary: Transcendental argument - We showed that this argument was unreasonable and logically fallacious. Requirements for Causation - We showed that scientist didn’t rule out the possibility of time before this universe which negates Con’s argument. Eternalism - We showed in R2 and in this round that Eternalism is not a fact and has many issues. And even if this theory was somehow true, there is no reason to believe that God didn’t create a block universe. Con fails to show that God is not probable. Rebuttal 3: Omniscience - Con argued that if God knows the future the the future exists which we showed was a non-sequitur. Rebuttal 4: Non-cognitivism of ‘greatness’ was also a fallacious argument with logic that’s non-sequitur. Thus the Pro team asserts that God most probably exists. Vote Pro. Sources in comments