God vs. Naturalism

I will present my case in Round 2 and rebut Pro's case in the following round. Looking forward to an interesting debate. C1) A caused universe is incoherent a) Requirements for Causation Physicist Sean Carroll notes two features that allow us to coherently talk about any form of causation whatsoever [1]. i. Time & the arrow of time (determined by entropy) ii. Physical laws Time and the arrow of time are naturally required to speak of causation. Without an arrow of time, it is impossible to coherently speak of a ‘process’ of anything, or a ‘beginning’ of something. The beginning would have to have a fixed point in the arrow of time, without which it is impossible for anything to coherently ‘happen’ over a period of *time* (because there is no time). For something to ‘occur’, it has to occur with a principle supporting its possibility. Possibility is incoherent without physical laws, as objective properties or actions are incoherent without limitation. It can be illustrated by the paradox of the stone, which admittedly does not disprove omnipotence, but illustrates how physical laws are necessary for anything to coherently have a ‘cause’ or beginning. Prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither physical laws nor time. Sans these essential features of the universe, to speak of causality is incoherent. That the universe was caused is the primary assumption of deism, and without these properties, a caused universe is incoherent. b) Eternalism To argue for causation is to propose a capacity for ‘change’. Change is only possible if there is an absolute moving reference point. If there is no such absolute moving reference, to speak of change, and, thus, causation, would be incoherent. According to the B-theory of time and eternalism, the universe is a ‘block’, with no such absolute moving reference, and, thus, is unchanging and cannot have been caused [2]. According to general relativity, space is ‘stretchable’. This was confirmed by the Friedmann observations and Hubble’s Law, that were used by Georges Lemaitre to propose the Big Bang theory, that states the universe is expanding, which is shown via. the cosmological redshift [3]. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, derived by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, further supports the theory that the universe is expanding [4]. General relativity also yields ‘eternalism’ or block universe, where the past, present and future are all equally real, and the passage of time is illusory via. the B-theory of time. General relativity models time as a ‘fourth dimension’ of space itself, allowing for the block universe theory to be likely true. Causality cannot be stressed on unless one assumes the presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of scientific discoveries supporting eternalism, especially special and general relativity. “Many [scientists and philosophers] have argued against presentism on the grounds that presentism is incompatible with the theory of relativity.” [5] If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent. In special relativity, each observer has their own ‘plane of simultaneity’, a small section of three-dimensional space where all events are simultaneous [6]. “Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another's (though in a case where one event A happens in the past light cone of another event B, all frames will agree that A happened in the past of B). So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in ‘the present’.” [7] This entails eternalism. Therefore, temporal change and, thus, causation, are incoherent. C2) Argument from Atemporal Minds I shall now use a contention to attack the metaphysical possibility of an atemporal mind, i.e. God. P1: God is an atemporal being with a mind. P2: All minds require processes. P3: Processes are always temporal and require time. C: An atemporal mind is a contradiction, thus God cannot exist. P1 is true by definition. As God is the creator of the universe, he must be external to the universe. Outside of the universe, there is no time. God is intelligent, and, therefore, has a mind. P2 is accurate as we don’t have a quantitative understanding of intelligence, which must be a subjective property unless it has a process. Subjective properties are incoherent if paired with transcendence, as noted by the incoherence of greatness as a property, thus intelligence has to be objective for the existence of God as a mind, ergo it must involve a process. To argue a mind is not a process is to also concede that the entity is static, and essentially non-causal, thus the mind must involve a process by definition [8]. P3 follows as if time does not exist, there will be no passage of time. It is impossible to coherently talk of a process without the passage of time. For something to coherently ‘happen’ and change something because of that, there has to be the passage of time. The conclusion directly follows from the premises. C3) Law of Parsimony a) Deductive The Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that in a group of equally likely explanation, the one with least number of assumptions is a priori most likely [9]. Theism, or even deism, has greater number of assumptions than atheistic metaphysical naturalism. The former assumes the existence of a physical universe, its laws and God, the latter only assumes the existence of a physical universe and its laws. Therefore, if the existence of God is not required and the functioning of the universe can do without the addition of God, then the other explanation is more likely [10]. On this, philosopher Bertrand Russell writes, “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” [11-12] b) Ad hoc hypotheses Occam’s razor also supports the explanation that invokes least ad hoc hypotheses [13]. “[A]n ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified.” [14] If you notice, arguments such as the argument from atemporal minds and the incoherence of a caused universe have to be refuted only by the addition of ad hoc hypothesis. Conclusion I have presented three deductive arguments to think atheism is likely true, thus negating the resolution soundly. I shall address my opponent’s case and defend my own in the following round. 1. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. A.B. Whiting (2004). “Free Particle Motion and the Cosmological Redshift.” The Observatory. 124:174-189. 4. http://journals.aps.org... 5. http://goo.gl... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 9. http://plato.stanford.edu... 10. http://russell.mcmaster.ca... 11. Ibid. 12. http://en.wikipedia.org... 13. http://en.wikipedia.org... (see Section 3, “Falsificationism”) 14. http://en.wikipedia.org...