The Cosmological Argument: punkforchrist vs. wiploc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between punkforchrist and wiploc who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: There is a First Cause of the universe."

punkforchrist will affirm and wiploc will oppose. The debate will proceed in turns in the following special format, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4058419&postcount=21).

Part I: Introductory arguments

Round 1: punkforchrist opens; wiploc rebuts
Round 2: punkforchrist defends; wiploc rebuts

Part II: Cross-examination (3 statements per round)

Round 3:
- punkforchrist submits 3 questions
- wiploc submits 3 answers
- punkforchrist submits 3 replies

Round 4:
- wiploc submits 3 questions
- punkforchrist submits 3 answers
- wiploc submits 3 replies

Round 5: punkforchrist evaluates cross-examination; wiploc evaluates cross-examination

Part III: Conclusion

Round 5: Round 6: punkforchrist concludes; wiploc concludes

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4061310#post4061310) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator


Addendum (Jan. 8): wiploc and punkforchrist have agreed to make a slight change to the debate parameters. Instead of a 750 word limit for round 2, it will be 1000 words.

Addendum (Jan. 13): wiploc and punkforchrist have agreed to add an extra round for evaluation of the cross-examination in Part II of the debate.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Part I: Introductory Arguments

[punkforchrist]

First of all, I want to thank Nightshade and the IIDB for allowing us to do this debate. I also want to thank my gracious opponent, wiploc, for being willing to engage in such an important discussion.

Instead of focusing on theological specifics in this debate, we will be focusing on the soundness of the cosmological argument for the existence of a First Cause of the universe.

So did the universe, in fact, require a such a First Cause? My contention is that it did. My argument will follow what William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, and others have articulated. This form of the cosmological argument contains only two premises, which if they are valid, reach a necessary conclusion. The syllogism goes as follows.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is often thought of as being self-evident. When we observe things that begin, they are always accompanied by either a preceding or a simultaneous cause. A football, for example, does not fly threw the air just because. The football will do so because someone (a cause) throws it, or because of some other cause.

It is the second premise that the opponent of the cosmological argument most often disputes. If the universe did not have a beginning, it would be infinite in time. But is this possible?

In order for the universe to be eternal, we must presuppose an infinite regress in time. The problem here is that it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to be passed. But if the present time could ever arrive, it would be necessary to pass such an infinite amount of time. By this reductio ad absurdum, we must conclude that the universe is not eternal. If it is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning, which means that it must have had a cause.

Ultimately, this cause of the universe must have itself been uncaused. This is so because it could only be outside of time, if it is the cause of the universe (including time). If this cause is outside of time, then it had no beginning, and it must be eternal. Thus, the cause of the universe is the First Cause.

I want to especially concentrate on the second premise of the argument. An illustration may help. Imagine for a moment an infinite amount of carrots on an imaginary farm. Suppose that every carrot on the farm has been picked and harvested. Now suppose that the farmer places every odd-counted carrot back in the ground. What we have is an infinite amount of carrots being placed back in the ground, whereas an infinite amount of carrots remain outside of the farm. The logical impossibility of an actual infinite is demonstrated in that an infinite number is subtracted from an infinite number, and yet, an infinite number is left over.*

To formalize the argument against an infinite regression in the universe, here is the following syllogism.

1. A beginning-less universe requires an actually infinite number of things.
2. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less universe cannot exist.

This conclusion validates premise two of the cosmological argument. Since both premise one and premise two of the cosmological argument are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows. The universe had a cause.

Works Cited

*Craig-Dacey. Does God Exist? Debate. Fresno 2005.

[wiploc]

Thanks to IIDB, the moderators, and punk.

The cosmological argument is supposed to deal with where everything came from, not just where some things came from. Only if universe, means "everything that exists," is it appropriate to discuss where the universe came from in a cosmological argument. Otherwise, we aren't dealing with ultimate origins. If universe, only means "some stuff, but not everything," it is not of interest. The origin of that kind of universe is at best a midpoint, not an ultimate origin.

But even that kind of universe (a partaverse, as opposed to an allaverse) has lots of contents, its causes could be myriad. Different parts of the universe could have been caused by different uncaused causes. So this version of the cosmological argument, even if it worked, could in no way suggest a single uncaused first cause.

The only way a first cause proponent might defeat this problem would be to define universe, as, "everything but the single uncaused first cause." But that would be arbitrary and self-serving, and would make the argument circular: the conclusion would be the same as the premise, so nothing would be proved.

Punk argues that other things need causes because they began, but god* doesn't, because he is unbegun. But in what sense can god be said to be unbegun? We call things begun if there was an earliest time when they existed, a time before which they did not exist. If god created time, then he didn't exist before the time when time began. In which case---by the same standard by which everything else is said to have had a beginning---god too had a beginning. In which case, according to punk's logic, the first cause must itself have had a prior cause. That's a fatal contradiction.

The only way to avoid that contradiction is to run time all the way back, to make it unbegun. But, that move ruins the cosmological argument by contradicting the second premise. Either way, the cosmological argument fails.

Punk argues, in effect, that the first premise is self evident because all of our experience is of caused things, is of one cause before another, going further and further back in time. If induction counts for anything, these observations mean that the chain of causality goes back forever. If he doesn't like induction's result, he shouldn't rely on induction.

Punk argues that the universe cannot be infinitely old, because infinity would not have had time to pass. Infinity couldn't pass in a lesser, finite, period of time; but it would necessarily pass in an infinite time. This argument is unpersuasive.

In our experience, causes precede effects. If causes don't necessarily precede effects, then a 22nd century lab experiment may be the cause of the big bang. So, if causes need not precede effects, the universe doesn't need an external cause. In which case, the cosmological argument fails.

But if causes do precede effects, then god can't have created time. He wouldn't have had any preceding time in which to do so. So, again, the cosmological argument fails either way.

Punk argues that we can judge from experience: "A football, for example, does not fly threw the air just because." But if, as I agree our experience indicates, a football can't exist "just because," then why should we accept that gods exist "just because"? The logic in the second case is exactly as strong as that in the first.

Punk argues that an infinite number of things cannot exist. This is a claim that I've only read in cosmological arguments. I've never gotten a scientist to confirm it. I see no argument that an infinity is weirder or less plausible than a god. If we reject infinities, then we must conclude that the circumference of the universe has jaggies. We must also conclude that that all movement consists of a series of tiny teleportations, since there can't be places between one point and the next. I don’t say this isn't true, since I have no idea; but I do say it is strikingly anti-intuitive. It is certainly more of a leap than believing in an infinite past.



1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

This seems arbitrary. What is it about beginnings, as opposed to, say, punk haircuts, that makes things need causes? This premise seems arbitrary and self-serving.

Plus, as explained above, either the first cause had a beginning, or it is an infinite regress. If it is an infinite regress, that contradicts punk's premise forbidding infinite regresses.

Quantum physics tells us that many things begin without causes. Are we assuming science is wrong on a whim, just because it helps the argument?



Imagine for a moment an infinite amount of carrots on an imaginary farm.

This part of the argument amounts to punk saying that transfinite mathematics must be wrong because it seems weird to laymen. The illustration no more proves that infinities don't exist than it proves farmers and carrots don't exist.

At bottom, the cosmological argument is an attempt to excite disbelief in the infinite regress on the grounds that we aren't comfortable with it. But that argument is no stronger than its reverse, the argument that there must be an infinite regress because we aren't comfortable imagining how the chain of being got started. Neither argument is stronger than the other; therefore, neither has any persuasive power. The cosmological argument weighs zero on the scales of logical persuasion.

crc


* Please forgive my use of the word "god." It is less clumsy than "uncaused first cause." And some of my sentences were getting unforgivably awkward until I simplified by use of the more succinct "god." It was me that used the word, not punk, so punk is not obliged to waste words refuting this usage or its imagined implications.

Mods: I'm waiving the post limits for the next round so long as punk does the same. I don’t see any way he could adequately respond otherwise.

[punkforchrist]

My opponent begins his opening statement by saying:

The cosmological argument is supposed to deal with where everything came from

However, one should keep in mind that the first premise of the cosmological argument is not that “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Wiploc next states:

Only if universe, means "everything that exists," is it appropriate to discuss where the universe came from in a cosmological argument.

I disagree with his definition of universe. I would define it as the Encarta Dictionary does: “all matter and energy in space.” I contend that this does not have to be everything.*

We call things begun if there was an earliest time when they existed, a time before which they did not exist. If god created time, then he didn't exist before the time when time began.

He claims that: if x created y, then there was no x before the y when y began. This argument is fallacious. Why assume that there was a time before time? This leads to contradictions. Rather than thinking that a First Cause existed before time, it would be better to think a First Cause exists beyond time. Remember I stated in my opening that effects are always accompanied by a preceding or a simultaneous cause. The First Cause need not precede the universe in any temporal sense.

The above solution would result in stating: x could act at any time y to cause y. Adjusting these variables, we have: A First Cause x could act at any time y to cause time y. There is no contradiction with this. Therefore, my opponent’s first objection to the second premise of the cosmological argument is not sound.

If induction counts for anything, these observations mean that the chain of causality goes back forever. If he doesn't like induction's result, he shouldn't rely on induction.

While we agree on the law of induction, we disagree about the idea of an infinite regression. If there can be no infinite regression, then the “chain of causality” will only go as far back as the First Cause. Before that my opponent misunderstands the first premise of the cosmological argument. He states:

Punk argues, in effect, that the first premise is self evident because all of our experience is of caused things, is of one cause before another, going further and further back in time.

I didn’t argue that everything has a cause, but like I stressed earlier, everything that has a beginning has a cause.

But if, as I agree our experience indicates, a football can't exist "just because," then why should we accept that gods exist "just because"?

This argument begs the question. A football flying through the air needs a cause because its action has a beginning. However, why does something require a cause that has no beginning (i.e.
the First Cause)?

Punk argues that an infinite number of things cannot exist. This is a claim that I've only read in cosmological arguments. I've never gotten a scientist to confirm it.

Scientists are unable to make conclusions about abstract ideas. If infinity is not an actuality, then it is unreasonable to presume that scientists can make any such claims. The great mathematician David Hilbert writes, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea..."**

In order for mathematicians to make use of the concept of infinity, arbitrary rules are made, like the rule that there can be no use of subtraction or division. This is not reality.

This seems arbitrary. What is it about beginnings, as opposed to, say, punk haircuts, that makes things need causes? This premise seems arbitrary and self-serving.

But the premise is not arbitrary. It is based on induction. To suggest that something with a beginning can exist without a cause, when we only observe beginnings with causes, is to engage in special pleading.

Quantum physics tells us that many things begin without causes.

Quantum physics actually does not imply causeless beginnings. Take the Casimir effect, for instance. The causes are the separate objects, which create the energy between them. Since the existing energy is the cause of the Casimir effect, and energy is something, then this is not an example of a causeless beginning.***

This part of the argument amounts to punk saying that transfinite mathematics must be wrong because it seems weird to laymen.

Not wrong, but neither is it applicable to reality. Infinity is an abstract concept.

The illustration no more proves that infinities don't exist than it proves farmers and carrots don't exist.

An actual infinite is different than infinity-as-idea. A parallel cannot be drawn between abstract and actual realities (i.e. infinities and carrots). I want to stick with the analogy for a moment. Suppose the farmer gives person A all of the carrots. Infinity minus infinity = zero. Suppose instead that the farmer gives person A all of the odd-numbered carrots. Infinity minus infinity = infinity. Now imagine the farmer gives person A all of the carrots numbered ten and higher. Infinity minus infinity = nine. Notice how all of these illustrations result in self-contradictory answers.****

At bottom, the cosmological argument is an attempt to excite disbelief in the infinite regress on the grounds that we aren't comfortable with it.

The issue isn’t comfort, but bare possibility. It has been demonstrated that an actual infinite cannot exist. In order to pass an infinite amount of time, we must place a limit on the infinite, which is patently absurd.

If the cosmological argument’s two premises are valid and sound, then so is the conclusion.

Works Cited

*http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/universe.html
**http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/doesGodexist/index.html
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
****Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator Student Edition (pg. 16-17). Zondervan 2004.

[wiploc]

PunkforChrist vs. Wiploc
Cosmological Debate
Second Negative

Punk's argument is like a stone arch. If any one stone fails, the whole arch falls. Let's look at some of the stones. I think every one of them fails, but my point here is that unless every element succeeds, then the cosmological argument fails.


Everything that has a beginning has a cause

Quantum physics tells us that lots of things begin without causes. That is the consensus of the experts. Punk may be able to find some credentialed person who disagrees, or some experiment he can construe as contrary to the consensus---but the consensus remains. If laymen are to opine on abstruse scientific arcana, they must, insofar as they wish to be reasonable, share the consensus of the experts. The claim that everything that begins has a cause is a keystone of punk's argument, yet he has not undermined the consensus of scientific experts who disagree with him. As he fails to persuade us of this point, so his whole argument fails.


The Possibility of Plural First Causes

Punk has undertaken to establish a single first cause, one that precedes all other causes. There are two problems with this.

One is that if god created time, he could not precede it. There was no prior time in which to create time. So, if god created time, he is, at best, simultaneous with other causes that he created. He is in no sense the first cause.

The other problem is that even if there is a first cause god, punk gives no reason to think there was only one. Why couldn't one first cause have created the earth and another the moon? Punk's argument cannot address this. Indeed punk didn't respond to this in his second post, effectively conceding the issue.


Special Pleading:

Punk says I'm guilty of special pleading. It's clear from the way he says it that punk thinks special pleading is bad. Illegitimate. Bad form. Unpersuasive.

I hadda look it up:

pleading or arguing that ignores unfavorable features of a case.


a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

[edit: source of above quote: The Nizkor Project: Description of Special Pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html) - NS]

Let's have an example:

1. Punk quotes a mathematician to the effect that there are no real-world infinities. Punk would have us believe him because he's credentialed. But, when I point out that none of the credentialed scientists I've questioned have agreed with punk's mathematician, punk dismisses all scientists with a wave of his hand. According to punk, scientists---which would include cosmologists and quantum physicists---are unable to cope with abstractions.
Scientists are unable to make conclusions about abstract ideas.
Punk would have us respect credentialed opinion when it supports him, and disregard it when it doesn't. That's special pleading.


Just Because

Punk says a football cannot exist "just because." But he has no problem with his first cause existing "just because." Again, that's special pleading.


No Infinities:
Punk seems to think that all transfinite numbers are a single number. If you told him that a big number minus ten might still be a big number, he would see that as obvious; but when you tell him that infinity less ten is still infinity, he sees insanity and contradiction.


The universe had a beginning:

Punk's argument that the universe had a beginning rests entirely upon the impossibility of infinity. If we are not persuaded of that, then his argument fails. He rests the impossibility of infinity upon two things only: special pleading about credentialed opinions, and his confusion about transfinite numbers.

Those are both utterly unpersuasive; therefore his claim that infinities are impossible fails; therefore his argument fails entirely.


Either a Beginning or an Infinite Regression

There must be one or the other. Punk is implicitly clear on this when he's talking about the partaverse. There are no other choices; one must be true, and the other must be false. Only on this basis could he argue, as he does, that because there was not an infinite regression, there must have been a beginning.

Now, Stephen Hawking, who has a right to an opinion, disagrees with punk. But I'm a just a layman. I don't know any better, so I'm happy to stipulate that things are either begun or infinitely old.

But punk says god is neither! How does that makes sense? And how is it not special pleading to apply the either/or rule to the rest of the universe but then arbitrarily not apply it to god?

Again, if punk does not persuade us on this point, his whole argument collapses.


Conclusion

For punk's argument to succeed, he must be persuasive on each one of these points:


Everything that has a beginning has a cause
If there was a first cause, there was only one.
Punk's mathematician is authoritative, but scientists who disagree can be dismissed.
It makes sense that god can exist "just because," but nothing else gets to.
Infinities are impossible.
The universe had a beginning.
Things that exist must either have begun or be infinitely old
Gods need not be either begun or infinitely old.In my opinion, he fails on all eight points. If I'm wrong, I have to be wrong on all eight points, or else the cosmological argument still fails.


One Final Point

The failure of the cosmological argument is not punk's fault. The flaws are inherent in the argument, not in punk's presentation. Punk has done all that can be done, given what he had to work with.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Part II: Cross-examination

(punkforchrist will begin with three questions for the first round)

[punkforchrist]

1. Concerning the first premise of the argument, you stated:

The claim that everything that begins has a cause is a keystone of punk's argument, yet he has not undermined the consensus of scientific experts who disagree with him.

Could you provide a documented example and explain how the scientist justifies the claim?

2. Considering that quantum mechanics makes use of imaginary numbers in its formulas*, is it reasonable to apply such a theory to reality?

3. Regarding the analogy of an infinite number of carrots, can you provide a solution that avoids the problem of a contradiction?

Works Cited

*http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

[wiploc]

Wiploc Answers Punk's Questions

1. Concerning the first premise of the argument, you stated:
The claim that everything that begins has a cause is a keystone of punk's argument, yet he has not undermined the consensus of scientific experts who disagree with him.

Could you provide a documented example and explain how the scientist justifies the claim?


Sorry. I can't explain quantum physics any more than you can explain god.

A reporter went to a physicist (I assume the peanut gallery will tell us who he was) and said, "I understand that you are one of only three people in the world who understand the general theory of relativity." After a pause, the scientist said, "I'm trying to think who the third would be."

Three ladies from Texas sent Bertrand Russell a letter saying how very much they had enjoyed his book Principia Mathematica. He wrote back saying he couldn't accept that. He said only six people in the world had ever understood it, and some of them had been absorbed back into the general population.

I thought I understood the second law of thermodynamics until someone showed it to me. It's an equation. The only thing I understood was the equal sign.

So, no, I do not understand quantum physics. That is why I must, if I wish to be reasonable, either hold the opinion held by the consensus of the experts, or not hold an opinion at all. The consensus of the experts is that things begin without causes.



2. Considering that quantum mechanics makes use of imaginary numbers in its formulas*, is it reasonable to apply such a theory to reality?

Imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than irrational numbers are irrational.

There was a time when people didn't think negative numbers were legitimate either, but then they found a way to use them. They proved useful. They can describe overdrafts, for instance, or distance below sea level. They apply to the real world because we found useful ways to use them to describe the real world.

And that justification happens also to be the only justification we have for applying any numbers to the real world. And, it turns out, we have exactly the same reason for using 5i as we do for using 5e or -5 or 5 itself: we can't describe reality without them.
Without imaginary numbers, we would have no transistors, no computers, no internet, no email.

If imaginary numbers seem weird and implausible to you, consider the nutty claim that god exists outside of time. That is totally weird and implausible, even meaningless. And it has no justification. You can't build a computer with it or anything. It is just pointless nonsense. So defenders of the cosmological argument don't really have standing to complain that we should discount infinities and irrational numbers on grounds of implausibility.


3. Regarding the analogy of an infinite number of carrots, can you provide a solution that avoids the problem of a contradiction?
I don’t even see the problem. Suppose the farmer dug up more-than-a-hundred carrots, and put half of them back, and the half was still more than a hundred. Would that be a paradox? No.

Now suppose he digs up more than a finite number of carrots and puts half back and the half is also a more-than-finite number. No problem.

All transfinite numbers are represented by the single word infinity, but that doesn't mean they are all the same number.

[punkforchrist]

1. Wiploc has answered my first question by reiterating:

The consensus of the experts is that things begin without causes.

He states that he does not understand quantum physics. That’s fine. I don’t either. However, he has not documented the further claim that “things begin without causes.” Does Hawking claim this?

In fact, Stephen Hawking states of his own theory, “I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.”*

My opponent has not documented any consensus of scientists to support his view.

2. My opponent answers the problem of imaginary numbers by appealing to every day uses (i.e. computers). Then again, we can construct a computer that will accept the use of imaginary numbers. A computer’s programming is conventional. But let’s apply this to the analogy. X carrots minus Y carrots = 10 carrots. In this solution, we can say 14 - 4 = 10. We could also say 8 - (neg.) 2 = 10. However, we know that negative two carrots does not correspond to reality.

Equations that do not restrict themselves to real numbers can work in an abstract or even a conventional realm, but they are meaningless in constructing a counter-argument to the first premise of the cosmological argument. Reasoning with imaginary numbers in such a way that things can begin without causes violates the clearest intuition of human thought. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, comes nothing.

3. My opponent would have to specify what the number “more-than-a-hundred” is.

x > 100. This is vague. If we state 150 > x > 100, and the farmer digs up all 150 and puts half of them back, he clearly puts back 75, which is less than a hundred.

All transfinite numbers are represented by the single word infinity, but that doesn't mean they are all the same number.

Implicitly, my opponent is drawing a distinction between a potential infinite and an actualized infinite. Either way, the problem is not solved. If it is a potential infinite, then the number chosen (say, 300) is subject to the same mathematical rules above. If it is an actualized infinite, then that contradicts my opponent’s claim that the word “infinity” does not mean they are the same number. Two actualized infinites must be identical.

Works Cited

*http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

For the next stage of Part II, wiploc will now submit three questions to punkforchrist.

[wiploc]

wiploc's questions for punk:

1. I think you're saying that causes don't precede effects, that the first cause was simultaneous with his effects. If causes needn't precede effects, why do we need an outside cause?

2. Space is either a continuum or discrete points with nothing (not even places) between them. If it's discrete points, all motion consists of teleportation. Do you really think there aren't an infinite number of points on a one inch line?

3. Everything that doesn't infinitely regress must have a beginning. If he doesn't have an infinite regress, how does god not have a beginning?
crc

[punkforchrist]

1. This question needs to be answered carefully. It is the action of a cause that doesn’t necessarily precede its effect. This is what I meant earlier by stating: The First Cause x can act at any time-y to cause time-y.

My opponent’s second part of the question is ambiguous:

If causes needn't precede effects, why do we need an outside cause?

I’m not sure what is meant here. But I think embedded in Wiploc’s question is the assertion that a cause is not needed if the cause does not precede its effect. This is a non sequitur. It does not follow that if there is no preceding cause, then there is no cause at all. This begs the question that my opponent has yet to prove, namely, that something can come from nothing. As I stated, a cause may be simultaneous with its effect.

2. I would answer, no. There is not an actual infinite amount of points in a given distance. As I made clear in both my opening and in my rebuttal, an actual infinite requires that we pass (or traverse) something infinite. This places a limit on an infinite, which is incongruous.

Instead of the word “discrete,” I would say “abstract.” I make this distinction, since it is important to emphasize that just because there are an infinite number of points between A and B in an abstract sense, it does not follow that there are an infinite number of points in an actual sense. Try as we may, but we cannot fit an infinite number of sheets of paper between what is supposedly an infinite number of points.*

Further, the argument presupposes a form of mathematical Platonism. Wiploc is arguing in favor of “such mind-independent entities as numbers,” as William Lane Craig puts it.** There is no reason to believe that anything can be infinite, especially considering that neither of my objections concerning actual infinites has not have been sufficiently answered (1. The impossibility of traversing an infinite amount of points; and 2. The absurdities that come about due to an application of infinity, as demonstrated in the analogy of carrots).

3. This is a very good question. Remember that I pointed out in my rebuttal that the First Cause is beyond time. Let me back up a bit, though.

For something subject to time, there are two options that even my opponent concedes in so positing this question. Either, 1) Something is caused, since it has a beginning; or 2) It is not caused, since it is infinite.

I fully accept the first option, but I reject the second pending any evidence to the contrary. Now why is it that the First Cause is not subject to either of these options? Certainly, if it has a beginning, then it is caused, and thus not the First Cause. If we claim it has an infinite regression of time, then we are led to contradictions.

The answer to this question is that there is a third option. A being may be outside of, or beyond, time itself. The First Cause is strictly timeless, and this avoids the problem of the two options above. Now Wiploc points out that this is impossible to comprehend. I agree. However, something need not be comprehensible to us in order for it to be logical. We just don’t have any other option other than to posit a timeless First Cause.

Works Cited

*Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology Volume One. Bethany House Publishers, 2002.

**Craig, William Lane and Sinnot-Armstrong, Walter. God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford University Press, 2004.

[wiploc]

Wiploc's Responses to Punkforchrist's Reponses to Wiploc's Questions

Question 1.
I think you're saying that causes don't precede effects, that the first cause was simultaneous with his effects. If causes needn't precede effects, why do we need an outside cause?
In a PM to Punk, I elaborated:
if the universe started at 2pm, and the cause of the universe was at 1:59, then clearly the cause was outside the universe. But that only works if causes precede effects. If causes don't precede effects---and you've suggested they can be simultaneous---then why would the universe need an external cause? Why can't it be something in the universe that causes the universe?
Punk did not answer the question.



Question 2.
Space is either a continuum or discrete points with nothing (not even places) between them. If it's discrete points, all motion consists of teleportation. Do you really think there aren't an infinite number of points on a one inch line?
Again, punk did not answer the question.

His suggestion that I am a Platonist is wildly off base.

His other comments suggest that he isn't really in touch with the subject matter that he based his argument on. For instance, it doesn't make sense to say that if space is continuous that "places a limit on an infinite." Discrete means non-continuous; it doesn't make sense to say locations in non-continuous space are "abstract" rather than "discrete."



Question 3.
Everything that doesn't infinitely regress must have a beginning. If he doesn't have an infinite regress, how does god not have a beginning?
Punk's response to the third question was to make up rules about the untimed universe in which his "first cause" resides: he says that things there don't need to either begin or infinitely regress. I can't say punk's wrong about that, for the same reason that I can't say Tolkien was wrong about Hobbits. I can't contradict made-up rules about a made-up place.

Three final points:

1. It is special pleading for punk to insist that "beyond time" is real while objecting to infinities and imaginary numbers on the grounds that they don't make sense.

2. There is no difference between a god who doesn't exist and one who doesn't exist at any time.

3. A cause that is timeless cannot possibly be first.

crc

[punkforchrist]

Have I been guilty of special pleading? My opponent states:

Punk would have us respect credentialed opinion when it supports him, and disregard it when it doesn't. That's special pleading.

One is guilty of special pleading only if a justifiable reason is not given to make the exception. My argument has been that any denial of the premise “Everything that has a beginning has a cause,” when there are no observations of anything to the contrary, results in this logical fallacy.

My appeal to Hilbert was followed by an explanation as to why the concept of an infinite regress results in a contradiction. Since a justifiable reason has been given, I am not engaging in special pleading.

Punk says a football cannot exist "just because." But he has no problem with his first cause existing "just because." Again, that's special pleading.

Same thing here. A justifiable reason has been given as to why the First Cause does not itself need a cause. It had no beginning. Such a statement cannot apply to things subject to time.

I’ve challenged my opponent to document his claim of a consensus of scientists who agree that something can come from nothing. We have not been given any documentation.

If causes don't precede effects---and you've suggested they can be simultaneous---then why would the universe need an external cause? Why can't it be something in the universe that causes the universe?

Time is an essential property of the universe. If the cause of the universe is itself part of the universe, then it cannot be subject to time. Otherwise, the first premise would again be infringed.

We can formalize it this way:

1. Everything subject to time has a beginning.
2. The universe is subject to time.
3. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Following this syllogism, we know that the conclusion of the cosmological argument follows if we look at the original argument.

Wiploc may define the universe in a way that includes things outside of time if he wishes. However, in so doing, a First Cause must still be posited. Following Wiploc’s reasoning, the First Cause is part of the universe, and yet outside of time. Speaking this way is perfectly fine, but it should be kept in mind that when I’m talking about the universe, I’m referring to the matter and energy in space. Such things are subject to time.

His other comments suggest that he isn't really in touch with the subject matter that he based his argument on. For instance, it doesn't make sense to say that if space is continuous that "places a limit on an infinite."

It does place a limit on the infinite if we are traversing an actual infinite amount of points. According to my opponent, when I walk from A to B, I am passing such an infinite amount of points. Yet that infinite is somehow less than the infinite number of points I pass from A to C. Fully actualized infinites must be equal. The contradiction has not been resolved.

I can't contradict made-up rules about a made-up place.

My conclusions do not rest on made-up rules if the conclusions are based on logical inferences. If there is a First Cause not subject to time, then it must be timeless and beginning-less. Anything else results in a contradiction.

1. It is special pleading for punk to insist that "beyond time" is real while objecting to infinities and imaginary numbers on the grounds that they don't make sense.

I’ve demonstrated that infinites and imaginary numbers not only don’t make sense, but that they result in contradictions and in the impossibility of traversing an infinite. I’ve also given a justification for why the First Cause is not liable to the problems with any actual infinites, thus avoiding the problem of special pleading.

2. There is no difference between a god who doesn't exist and one who doesn't exist at any time.

This conclusion can only be reached if it is presupposed that timeless things are non-existent. My opponent has not offered any argument against the possibility of such things. Further, I believe I’ve demonstrated that a timeless First Cause must exist in order to avoid the problems I’ve detailed earlier about an infinite universe.

3. A cause that is timeless cannot possibly be first.

This is only true if it is possible to show that the First Cause could not act at time-y to cause time-y.

One argument often used against the cosmological argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition. There could be a baseball team made up of all-stars. That doesn’t mean they are a good team, though, since they may not play well together. Couldn’t this equally apply to the cosmological argument? The problem with this charge is that while the whole may not be like its parts, from observation we know that both the whole and its parts are always caused. A baseball team is caused by the formation of its individual players. Likewise, the universe is caused by all matter and energy in space. The question then becomes: could these parts be uncaused? I think I’ve demonstrated that they cannot.

Before we get into our closing statements, I do want to address one issue Wiploc brought up that I haven’t answered.

Different parts of the universe could have been caused by different uncaused causes.

At the risk of sounding like I’m merely glossing over this point, the meat of the argument that I’ve been presenting has been focused not on how many First Causes there are, but simply that there is at least one First Cause. I think a discussion on this would be great, but I didn’t want to sidetrack too much from my thesis. For anyone interested, however, Thomas Aquinas offers a series of arguments that when taken together, demonstrate that if there is a First Cause, there is only one.

[wiploc]

Kudos

I think that was punk's best post yet.


Beginnings Without Cause

I understand that the consensus among quantum physicists is that things here in the real world (not just in punk's god's timeless neverland) happen without cause.

Punk challenged me to explain quantum mechanics, but I cannot. He then misrepresented his challenge, claiming to have asked me to document the consensus that things begin without cause. I believe it exists, but I haven't located a citation.

Regardless, punk has the burden of proof. He has not shown that the consensus of knowledgeable opinion is that everything that begins in the real world has cause. He hasn't even tried to do that. He doesn't have a case.

It isn't clear that everything that begins has a cause; therefore, his whole argument fails.


Infinities

If I tried to argue that infinities exist in the real world, I'd be in trouble. I couldn't argue based on my own authority, because I'm not personally competent with higher math. Nor could I show that most scientists agree with that position. So, it's a good thing I don't have the burden of proof.

Punk, however, does have the burden of proof. He has based his argument on the claim that infinities don't exist in the real world. He has never attempted to show that expert consensus agrees with him. He has cited a single mathematician, but has given us no reason to believe that most experts agree with him. Punk also made personal arguments, but they only persuade us that punk---like me---is not personally competent with higher math.

The upshot is that punk has not met his burden of proof. He has been totally unpersuasive on this key point, on which his entire argument depends.


Transfinite Contradictions

Infinity is a big place. You can think of it being like outdoors. If walking ten steps takes you outdoors, you can walk another ten steps and still be outdoors. This is not a contradiction. Punk's claim that all infinities must be equal is idiosyncratic and unsupportable. In the minds of people who have mathematical facility, that simply isn't true. At bottom, his numeric argument is the simple claim that things that confuse him must not be real.


Intuition

Reasoning with imaginary numbers in such a way that things can begin without causes violates the clearest intuition of human thought.

Reasoning that things can exist despite not existing at any time violates the clearest intuition of human thought. It is special pleading for punk to rely on intuition when it supports him, but to otherwise dismiss it. And yet, his whole case depends on just such special pleading.


Special Pleading

One is guilty of special pleading only if a justifiable reason is not given to make the exception. My argument has been that any denial of the premise “Everything that has a beginning has a cause,"

But punk doesn't have a justifiable reason. He says, in effect,

1. Something we haven't observed created the universe.
2. We've never observed something timeless.
3. Therefore, something timeless created the universe.

That's obviously not valid. One could substitute, "with seven left hands," for, "timeless," and reach a different (equally absurd) conclusion with exactly the same logical force. Once again, punk doesn't have a real case.


A justifiable reason has been given as to why the First Cause does not itself need a cause. It had no beginning.

If Neverland exists, we don't know what things are like there. Punk has never persuasively argued that things in Neverland don't need causes. Nor can he. His claim that things in the real world need causes is based on observation---but we have no observations of Neverland.

Even if it is true---which punk has not established---that there are no real infinities in the real world, there is no way he can argue against infinite regressions in Neverland. We don't know what Neverland is like. Punk has undertaken to prove that regression stops in Neverland. He has made no credible attempt to do so. And, again, he cannot possibly do so, since we don't know what the rules are there.


Timeless First

I pointed out that if something is timeless, it cannot be first. I did not grasp the cogency of punk's response, but I know it cannot be persuasive. If words have meaning, it is obvious that that which is first cannot be timeless, and that which is timeless cannot be first.


Recap

For punk's argument to succeed, he must be persuasive on each one of these points:
· 1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
· 2. If there was a first cause, there was only one.
· 3. Punk's mathematician is authoritative, but scientists who disagree can be dismissed.
· 4. It makes sense that god can exist "just because," but nothing else gets to.
· 5. Infinities are impossible.
· 6. The universe had a beginning.
· 7. Things that exist must either have begun or be infinitely old
· 8. Gods need not be either begun or infinitely old.
Number 2 turns out to be beyond the scope of this debate.

Numbers 7 and 8 taken together are special pleading.

Numbers 3 and 4 are obviously false.

Numbers 1, 5, and 6 are as much in doubt as they were before the debate began. Punk has been unable to substantially support any of these premises.


Conclusion

In my opinion, the cosmological argument is inherently flawed; nobody can defend it successfully.

Be that as it may, it's clear that punk has not defended it successfully. I don't know whether the universe had a beginning, but I know punk hasn't shown that it did. It is the same with the other questions.

The affirmative side has not met the burden of proof on any of the critical issues. It would have to carry all of them in order to win this debate.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Part III: Conclusion

[punkforchrist]

I want to begin my closing statement by again thanking the IIDB forum and KnightWhoSaysNi, for moderating this debate. I also want to thank wiploc for his insightful posts and cordial demeanor.

Throughout the debate, I have defended two premises, which if true, make the conclusion necessarily true. My opponent does not disagree that my proof is valid, but rather questions its soundness. Looking over the arguments I have presented in support of the two premises, readers will notice that there has been no need to stretch the bounds of logic or to make any conclusions not based on common sense.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

My opponent has argued that quantum mechanics allow for things to begin without causes. The two main problems with this approach are 1) It has not been documented; and 2) It contradicts the common sense rule: out of nothing, comes nothing. Is it really conceivable to think that something could come from nothing? After all, what is nothing other than nothing?

2. The universe had a beginning.

In support of this premise, I have offered two reasons. The first is the impossibility of traversing an infinite number of things. It would take an infinite amount of time to pass an infinite number of things. Yet, we have arrived at the present time. The second is the absurdity of adopting a concept of infinity to reality. I supported this notion by an analogy, which my opponent has not answered.

In fact, neither argument has been answered. Instead, what we find is that wiploc charges that it is because I cannot understand these things that makes me reject them outright. However, this is a characterization of my argument. It is not that these things simply don’t make sense, or that they are incomprehensible. They are impossible. Keep in mind that both of my arguments on this point must be refuted in order for my opponent to be correct. If one succeeds, then so does the second premise.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

This conclusion is what necessarily follows as a result of the two premises being true.

The First Cause is timeless

My opponent claims that we cannot know that if there is a First Cause, that it is not itself caused. He reasons:

there is no way he can argue against infinite regressions in Neverland. We don't know what Neverland is like.

We have several options:

1) There is no First Cause, and the universe has an infinite regression.
2) There is no First Cause, and the universe had a beginning and came from nothing.
3) There is a First Cause, but it is caused by another timeless being.
4) There is a First Cause, and it is itself uncaused.

It has been demonstrated that the first three options are insufficient, as they result in absurdities and cases of special pleading. We are therefore justified in concluding that there is a First Cause of the universe.

[wiploc]

Concluding Statement

Thanks to punk, the moderators, IIDB, and the Peanuts.



Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

My opponent has argued that quantum mechanics allow for things to begin without causes. The two main problems with this approach are 1) It has not been documented; and 2) It contradicts the common sense rule: out of nothing, comes nothing. Is it really conceivable to think that something could come from nothing? After all, what is nothing other than nothing?

1. He's right; I didn't document anything beginning without a cause. But he didn't document that nothing begins without a cause. And he had the burden of proof.

2. Uncaused beginnings affront common sense? More so than punk's cause being both first and timeless, and being real though it never existed?

Beyond the fact that other theories offend punk more than his theory of his timeless god, we have no reason to accept his theory. The affirmative has not met the burden of proof.

Punk's justifications for his first premise are entirely unpersuasive; therefore, his first premise is effectively unsupported. Since punk's argument depends on this premise, the argument fails.



The universe had a beginning.

In support of this premise, I have offered two reasons. [1.]The first is the impossibility of traversing an infinite number of things. It would take an infinite amount of time to pass an infinite number of things. Yet, we have arrived at the present time. [2.]The second is the absurdity of adopting a concept of infinity to reality. I supported this notion by an analogy, which my opponent has not answered.

1.a. Punk argued, in post 13, that traversing a one-inch line with an infinite number of points would somehow limit infinity. I'll let that pass without comment.

1.b. I think this argument first appeared in punk's closing post, but I respond anyway: It's true that it would take infinitely long for an infinite time to pass. While that shows that such a length of time couldn't pass in a finite period, it does not even suggest that it couldn't pass in an infinite period.

2. Punk thinks it absurd to apply infinities to reality. However, he also thinks it absurd to apply imaginary numbers to reality. As his carrot analogy shows, he also thinks that all infinities are the exact same number. In other words, punk doesn't have personal authority in the higher math arena. He needed then, to present evidence that a majority of experts opine that there are no infinities in the real world. He never did that. He didn't meet his burden of proof.

None of the arguments punk offered in support of the second premise has any real traction. The second premise is effectively unsupported. Therefore, the argument fails as a whole.



Conclusion

Given that neither of punk's premises were effectively supported, it follows that the conclusion has not been effectively supported either. We have been given no reason to believe in a first cause.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate is now complete. We would like to thank wiploc and punkforchrist for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- KWSN, FD Moderator