== Rebuttals ==
Cosmological Argument From Contingency
This argument essentially claims that the universe is as a whole contingent and the only possible explanation for its existence it that it has been created by a necessary, non-contingent entity i.e a being without a cause. However, in Con's third premise he only limits this to matter, but the universe is comprised of space-time, matter and energy so I will assume Con wishes to extend it to this.
This argument is ultimately incoherent and begs the question. This is because it is successfully refuted by the Hume-Edwards Principle and is also predicated on the fallacy of composition.
To elaborate, the Hume-Edwards Principle illustrates that if each element in a collection is given a causal explanation, then the aggregate of all the elements has likewise been explained.
Pro is effectively postulating that in a collection X, which has elements p,q,r, wherein these elements are each causally contingent, there must be a non-contingent cause for p,q,r. However, via the Hume-Edwards Principle, if the cause of p,q and r itself is contingent then the necessity for a non-contingent origin is not facillitated as the origin itself is contingent.
Even if the universe has a non-contingent cause for its existence, it would be unreasonable to assume that the non-contingent cause is God. Assuming such is special pleading, thus it is required for Pro to prove that this cause is necessarily God as defined per the description.
Secondly, in a collection X, comprised of elements p,q and r, wherein each element is itself contingent, it would be committing the fallacy of composition to presume that the collection X, is also contingent, just because the elements it contains are contingent. The fallacy of composition effectively means that the whole of something doesn't necessarily have the same properties of that which comprises it . Hence, it is intellectually dishonest to assume that the universe as a whole is contingent, just because everything we have observed within the universe is contingent.
== Aff ==
Here Con misrepresents my intentions with Occam's Razor. He asserts:
"Just because one develops an idea
that has one assumption (commitment) that doesn’t imply that that the theory is
I never stated that; I professed that it would be deduced to be a priori most likely viz. due to the Law of Parisomony the competing theory with less ontological commitments is deemed more likely than the other theory. This is sourced from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that I included in my references in the first round.
My adversary misunderstands the use and purpose of Occam's Razor, he states:
physical world is myriad of complexity that cannot not be reduced to simplicity
as the Razor suggests"
This is unsourced and commits a bare assertion fallacy. Moreover, it is misleading to draw focus to the individual parts i.e the complexed, physical laws of our universe, rather than focus on the ontological nature of our universe, as that is the context of the debate at hand. I'm also surprised Con has stated this because the Razor is often used in the scientific method. It wouldn't need to be further complicated, insofar as, I'm sure Con and I can agree that we both observe the universe to exist. This is what the metaphysical naturalist and the theist have in common. However, what seperates the two, is that theism is contingent upon another ontological commitment i.e God. Therefore, via the Razor, the competing theory is more likely as it has less ontological commitments.
In the next round I commend my opponent to elaborate whilst in the context of the ontology of the universe, why the Razor doesn't apply here.
Furthermore, Con asserts:
Razor applies to this universe, does it not. Does that mean that it would apply to a being that exists outside this
Occam's Razor applies to *competing hypotheses/theories*. Con implies that because God is defined as transcendent (outwith the observable universe), Occam's Razor wouldn't apply to Him. However, this can be refuted by a simple analogy. If one were to wake up on a cold winter morning to see that there stood a snowman in their front garden, the idea that the neighbour erected the snowman is more parsimonious than the idea that God erected the snowman via Occam's Razor. Hence, it can be seen that being transcendent/non-transcendent is a redherring and completely irrelevant.
Thus, the theory without God's ontological commitment is a priori most likely which means that the resolution is successfully upheld.
== Conclusion ==
Thus far, Con has forwarded the Cosmological Argument from Contingency, to which I have successfully refuted by citing the Hume-Edward principle and by depicting that the argument ultimately commits the fallacy of composition.
Moreover, I have defended my postulate that is Occam's Razor as Con misrepresented the arguments intentions, and attempted to refute the argument with bare assertions, where my argument was credibly cited in the first round -- to which Con has ignored.
Over to Con.