DDO Olympics Philosophy and Morals: Round 2

Premise 1The Principle of Sufficient ReasonCon Rebuttal: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is sound only because we exist within space and time, those conditions did not exist pre-big bangIf the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing comes nothing, fails to hold in a dimension without space or time then that is reason why we would see an infinite number of universes appearing on top of ours at any given time. My opponent did not refute this argument from the last round, so allow me to reiterate. There is indeed a dimension without space nor time and it is from this dimension that the big bang came about. In other words, a non-spatiotemporal plane brought about the spatiotemporal plane that we exist on. However, there must still be a cause for the big bang. If the non-spatiotemporal plane would allow for the failure of ex nihilo nihil fit then that would lead us to the conclusion that big bangs can and do arise from nothing at all. If this is true then there is no reason why an infinite number of big bangs would not happen every second - there is no time in this other plane to limit the amount of big bangs that could happen for any given timeframe on our plane. If an infinite number of big bangs happen every second, then logically and infinite number of big bangs would happen in our universe at any given second. Because they do not, it must be deduced that the big bang had a reason. This upholds the PSR, my continuation of this line of reasoning will be in defense of my second premise. If the universe was caused by a big bang, and that big bang had a reason for happening, then that reason could not be natural for there definitionally cannot be a physical being in a plane of existence that does not have a spatial dimension. Therefore the cause of the big bang must be non-physical. If it is non-physical then it must either be abstract - i.e. a principle such as the laws of mathematics or logic - or personal, such as a mind. The laws of mathematics, logic, and other abstract beings cannot cause anything to happen. They do not exist physically to interact externally with other existences by mere chance, and they do not have a mind to form an intent to interact with the world around them. Only a mind could therefore cause action in a non-spatial dimension.This is not an epistemic question, in that it does not pertain to whether or not we can perceive the validity of ex nihilo nihil fit, but an ontological one, whether or not things could at all exist without reason. An epistemic variation of the principle would be flawed for all the reasons my opponent states, its limited to our current sense perception. The ontological variation escapes my opponents criticisms because in terms of a dimension that lacks space and time, the additional lack of the principle ex nihilo nihil fit would indisputably cause an infinite number of big bangs at an infinite number of points in the universe for every second that passes in our time frame. When asking why did the big bang happen rather than not, we implicitly accept that the big bang had a reason for happening. If we answer that the big bang happened rather than not for no reason at all, then we concede that many more big bangs ought to happen for no reason at all. This does not happen, ergo there is some causal restraint on the big bang.Premise 2Con Rebuttal: The OUCMy opponent continues to explain in round 2 that the OUC explains how every universe after the first is formed. It is painfully obvious, however, that this reasoning only holds true in the future direction, and not in the past. He explicitly states that big bangs and big crunches are brought about by gravity, however gravity did not exist before the first big bang. My opponent admits that space and time did not exist prior to this point as well. The OUC can only use gravity to explain the second big bang, and the third, and so on, as it uses the energy provides by the collapse of the prior universe. This fails to account for how this chain started. As stated in round 1, an infinite chain of contingent explanations is impossible. Each universe under the OUC is contingent on the existence of the last. The OUC cannot be self-explanatory for it would require explanation from additional universes ad infinitum, and each of those universes would need to be explained by additional universes as well. Because the explanation fails does not mean we default to claiming it exists necessarily. Sure, universe 2 may not have failed to exist if universe 1 did indeed exist, but it could have failed to exist if universe 1 did not exist, and universe 1 did not necessarily exist, ergo every universe in the chain is contingent, not necessary.Con Rebuttal: Quantum PhysicsMy opponents two objections via physics only matter epistemologically, in terms of how we perceive the universe. The entirety of the LCA is an ontological argument, one that addresses the universe's state of being. Let me explain this by quoting my opponents second citation (I'm wondering if he reads his sources at all), "The major significance of the wave particle duality is that all behavior of light and matter can be explained through the use of a differential equation which represents a wave function, generally in the form of the Schrödinger equation. This ability to describe reality in the form of waves is at the heart of quantum mechanics." His source continues, "While the mathematics, though complicated, makes accurate predictions, the physical meaning of these equations are much harder to grasp. The attempt to explain what the wave particle duality "actually means" is a key point of debate in quantum physics. Many interpretations exist to try to explain this, but they are all bound by the same set of wave equations ... and, ultimately, must explain the same experimental observations." What this means is that while our epistemic interpretations of wave functions are not yet perfect, we are dealing with the specific ontological existences of these wave functions, i.e. they exist in one and only one state of being. The theory of relativity interacts with the LCA in the same manner, on an epistemic level. The LCA makes this simple for you, beings exist contingently or necessarily. If they exist necessarily then their existence is self-explanatory and they could not have failed to exist. If they could have failed to exist, i.e. they have a cause for their existence, then they exist contingently. Even if we change our perception of reality to mathematical interpretations of wave functions it only leaves us unsure of what happens after a being starts existing, but we can still determine philosophically why that being existed. In layman's terms, if I look at you I am looking at an epistemic interpretation of your existence as displayed by wave functions (again, my opponent's source advocates that the heart of quantum physics is the description of reality via wave functions) which may or may not be accurate. However, I know that ontologically you exist in a state of being and that your state of being was caused by another state of being. The LCA need not account for the epistemic objections raised by quantum physics to prove the ontological nature of the universe.Premise 3Con Rebuttal: The universe could be caused by an abstract beingThis is simply false. As demonstrated above, abstract beings such as mathematics and logic cannot interact with the rest of existence. Because they do not have a physical being, they exist separate from space and time, they cannot by chance interact with other existences. Because they lack a mind, they cannot intentionally interact with other existences. If the existence of the universe is non-physical, which we have determined that it is, then it must necessarily be personal, or a mind, in order to cause the universe to exist.