The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1J

However, I do want to quickly point out that he is on a very precarious position, given that he is relying on some very weak reasons to back up his arguments. Simply quoting a single mathematician who died decades ago does not do you good for grounding your thoughts in the concept of infinity, nor does it help you to ignore the entire concept of the time debate since your biggest premise relies on an assumption on it already. But first, parts about physics need to be addressed: ==================== PRO -- The universe is in motion ==================== I want to apologize beforehand by conflating Newton's law with the Prime Mover's argument - my opponent has made the mistake of saying that Netwon's first law supports it, but I failed to draw a distinction in my head (was probably due to the flu). Unfrotunately for him, he failed to catch his own mistake and this is what leads to his downfall: His premise that whatever is in motion must have been moved is the basic premise in the Prime Mover's argument - which is based on Aristotelian physics. Obviously outdated, even Newton's law demonstrate that an object can be in motion without any causing it. For example, what reason are we to preclude that something could have always been moving? After all, the first law of motion does state that "every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it[1]", even when it's in motion. And with our knowledge of the law of conservation, such phenomena is possible. Indeed, if we are to talk about bodies in a state of motion with an "unique" cause - or lack thereof - your own link about ideal gases state that "the molecules obey Newton's laws of motion, and they move in random motion. [2]" Random motion isn't motion that is too complicated for us to measure so we just call it random for convenience - it has an inherent randomness given the nature of the quantum world. To say that something is random are is to say that it is objectively random. That is, in an experiment where all causally relevant parameters are controlled, different results still sprout. This is how we can have the possibility of gas molecules in such weird phenomena, as is ascribed by theories such as the Kinetic theory of Gases[3]. ==================== PRO -- Issues about the universe being eternal ==================== "I am under the impression, then, that we are in agreement that the universe was was eternal, but had a beginning. Correct me if I am wrong. " ----> Well, in a way you are correct. The universe is eternal in the sense that the future will go on forever, though there was no such thing as an infinite past. However, you preclude this as a problem because you ask what caused the beginning, and what caused that further thing, etc. This is where my talk about the theory of time comes into play, which you ignorantly reject: Your concerns with the impossibility of an infinite past would only be realized if you assume the nature of time to be modeled under the A-series. However, since I have shown such a model to be incoherent and the B-theory to be much more considerable, then the question becomes whether or not an infinite past is reconcile with the B-theory. To help you out, IT DOES. Therefore, any ammunition you had planned to use to fuel the cosmological argument is nonexistent given an enlightened understanding of the philosophy of time. Yet, you totally ignore this point and state that you "quoted a very legitimate source". First of all, quoting what someone believes DOES NOT CONSTITUTE a proof given this dialogue. Not only is your mathematician dead for awhile - meaning advances in mathematics may have surpassed him several regards, but his expertise is only in mathematics; nowhere does he have expertise in the philosophy of time and causality. "There is nothing to the concept of motion but numbers. " ----> Are you really saying there is nothing about motion but abstract numbers? This is incredibly false - motion is an obvious physical phenomena. Don't believe me? Walk around, and you'll have first hand evidence. ==================== PRO -- Issues about the Big Bang ==================== First of all, on what philosophic or scientific grounds do we have to believe in your causal principle that something cannot come from nothing. Care to give a reason? If you would like examples of creations ex nihilo, then refer to this great article[4]. A large part of your misunderstanding is that in physics, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum - there is no such thing as a perfect "nothing". This is merely a philosophic idea, and in reality does not exist. ==================== PRO -- Issues about the cosmological argument and my opponent's definition of God ==================== You made specific characteristics in your definition of God, in which he classified him as omnipotent and omniscient. Obviously, you have to show why only such a conception of God would be the conclusion of the cosmological argument, and not the infinite amount of possible other gods who can fit the same conclusion. For example, powerful aliens from another dimension could have created the universe - would this not fit the universe? Even if you deny this, at the very least you say that this being is metaphysical. So what prevents my previous example of inter-dimensional entities? ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent ignores the aspects of the argument dealing with the philosophy of time and causality, but he needs to pay it much more attention as it is the crux of his argument -- which I would say has crumbled. Furthermore, his preconceptions about infinity preclude him from getting anywhere then "quoting some famous mathematician". ---References--- 1. . http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... 2. . http://physics.bu.edu... 3. . http://www.grc.nasa.gov... 4. . http://www.infidels.org...