Is Theism a Sound Position?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
*Terms*
-Theism: "the personal cause of our universe attributed with the 4 O's"
-Sound: X would be considered sound if and only if, X has been proven to be logically consistent, objectively true, or at very least most likely to be true given our current understanding of the universe.
*Burden of Proof*
-Shared
-Pro ought to show why theism is sound (meeting the criteria provided)
-Con ought to show why theism is unsound (not meeting the criteria provided)
*Rules*
1. No kritiks
2. No forfeits
3. Obey the debate format
-Failure to adhere to these rules is deemed poor conduct.
*Format*
R1: Con provides opening argument, Pro responds with opening argument and a rebuttal
R2: Clash (rebuttal and defence)
R3: Clash (rebuttal and defence)
R4: Con provides final defence and rebuttal with closing statements, Pro waives the right to defend and rebut but can summarise their arguments.
I would like to thank Logicae for accepting this debate. I’ve decided to recycle an argument from one of my previous debates, since it was left untouched and I’m pressed for time. So, I apologize if that part of my argument seems like a banalized effort. Anyway, let’s get into the argument!
== Negative ==
God is defined to be the source of all creation i.e the universe. Hence, I affirm that scientific consensus postulates that the notion of a caused universe is most likely sophistry. Therefore, by extension, the notion of God (the creator of the universe) is most likely sophistry.
C1.1 Overview - A-Series vs B-Series of TimeA caused universe is fundamentally predicated by Presentism or a framework upholding the A-Series of time. The veracity of the A-Series of time is rooted by the veracity of “tensed facts” . A tensed fact can be described as something that is true given its “temporal perspective” [1]. For example, the statement “today, it is sunny” would be a tensed fact, given that it is has a specific tense.
Indeed, the universe can only be caused if and only if it exists as a tensed fact. William Craig explains the prerequisites well:
“A. x begins to exist at t if and only if x comes into being at t
B. x comes into being at t if and only if (i) x exists at t, and the actual world includes no state of affairs in which x exists timelessly, (ii) t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from t’ < t at which x existed by an interval during which x does not exist, and (iii) x’s existing at t is a tensed fact” [2]
This idea of “tensed facts” pertains directly to the A-Series of time – the explicit difference between past, present and future. However, the notion of something existing “tenseless” pertains to the B-Series of time – the explicit parity between past, present and future. The B-Series of time (as a superset of Eternalism) refutes the notion of causal relationships as it affirms that the past, present and future are equally real and thus facilitates a theory of time which scientifically and logically explains the existence of an uncaused universe.
Thus, I will format this as a deductive syllogism.
C1.2 UU Deductive Syllogism
P1: If the universe is caused, the A-Theory of time is true
P2: The A-Theory of time is not true
C: The universe is uncaused
P1: P --> Q
P2: ¬Q
C: ∴ ¬P
C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
C1.2 Premise One
I assume this premise is uncontroversial between my opponent and I. As aforementioned, the notion of a caused universe and the A-Series of time come hand-in-hand, as without the existence of tensed facts there is no distinction between past, present and future.
C1.2 Premise Two
Here will be the bulk of my argument.
C1.2.1 B-Theory of Time (Eternalism) – The Block UniverseHere I argue that the B-Theory of time is far more likely to be true and that general scientific consensus affirms such in earnest. Eternalism envisions the universe to be tenseless, existing with one time and three spatial dimensions, where there can be no *objective* passing of time [3]. This is dissimilar to Presentism, or the A-Series of time, where it is only the present that is true. Special Relativity posits that absolute simultaneity is false and that relative simultaneity is true [4]. To give this context, any observer will have a frame of reference. Let’s say events ‘X & Y’ occurs, it is impossible to say, in an absolute sense, that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. A more layman’s example is this,
“a car crash in London and another in New York appearing to happen at the same time to an observer on Earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an airplane flying between London and New York” [5].
This is due to how objects moving at a quicker, but constant velocity relative to another object will experience time more slowly relative to the other object [5]. Hence, what special relativity shows is that observers in different frames of reference have different perceptions of whether or not a pair of events happened at a specific time, with there being no definitive way to prove whose perception has more veracity than the other. This refutes the A-Theory of time, because it shows that there is no *objective present* as each frame of reference perceives the present differently and are all equally correct.
This entails Eternalism, as it alludes to the present being *illusory* and entails that the present is actually intangible.
C1.2.2 Retrocausality
Retrocausality (or backwards causation) is a concept where the ‘effect’ precedes the ‘cause’ [6]. Such a concept would be absurd under the A-Theory of time, since the future would not exist to act as a causal agency. However, there is evidence to suggest that such a concept is prevalent in the quantum world.
To preface this claim, research abundantly suggests that there exists a pervasive asymmetry in time and that this time-symmetry extends to the causal dependences at the quantum level [6]. Price (2012) created a viable argument for retrocausality, showing that time-symmetry directly implies retrocausality. Moreover, it is further demonstrated with quantum entanglement, which suggests that entangled particles interact with each other retrocausally when one particle is observed and its wave function collapses.
Therefore, the block universe theory is not only congruent with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity but also makes successful predictions in the quantum universe with tremendous accuracy which otherwise would have been deemed absurd under the A-Theory of time.
C1.2 ConclusionPremise one is fairly axiomatic so the real debate is decided with premise two, to which I have provided a preponderance of a posteriori evidence for. From the evidence provided, the A-Theory of time is almost certainly false. Hence, it can be concluded that the universe is almost certainly uncaused.
C1.3 The Universe Lacks a Need for God
This argument is logically presented as such:
P1: If God exists, then the universe is caused
P2: The universe is uncaused
C: God does not exist
P1: P --> Q
P2: ¬Q
C: ∴ ¬P
C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
C1.3 Premise One
This is true per the definition of God in the debate description
C1.3 Premise Two
The veracity of this premise is upheld with C1.2.
C1.3 Conclusion
Hence, the conclusion logically follows and the resolution is successfully negated.
C2. Irrationality of preferring Theism over Metaphysical Naturalism or other beliefs of God (Occam’s Razor)
Even if we are to accept that there exists a powerful, timeless, immaterial, conscious entity that “willed” our universe into being, I assert it would be far more rational to deem the amalgamation of properties to be non-Theistic. For example, Theism (as defined) unwarrantedly adds that this entity is the paragon of its attributes. For example, instead of the entity being “very powerful” it is “omnipotent” – instead of the entity being “very knowledgeable” it is “omniscient” etc. Without direct evidence of the epitome of these attributes, why are we to assume the entity possesses them? It would be more parsimonious to assume that it is “very powerful, knowledgeable etc.” rather than being the upmost of that attribute, purely on the grounds of Occam’s Razor.
C3. Internal Inconsistencies of an Entity with the 4 Os
Here, God will represent the personal entity attributed with the 4 Os: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. Non-cognitivism is normally demonstrated in ethics to show that moral knowledge is impossible to acquire. It postulates that moral expressions don’t actually predicate any real properties, nor do they have truth conditions [8]. I aim to show that, specifically God’s attributes (the 4 O’s) fail to actually provide any meaningful representation of the concept “God”, nor do they predicate anything truly coherent.
C3.2 Syllogism
P1: God is internally consistent if it has a primary property
P2:God does not have a primary property
C:God is internally inconsistent
C: ∴ ¬P
C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
C3.2 Premise One
Normally, concepts (essentially a blueprint) have properties that they instantiate in reality. For example, the concept of an apple is, typically, a red pome fruit. Therefore, something is an ‘apple’ in reality, if it is both ‘red’ and is a ‘pome fruit’. This is similar to classes and instantiation in object oriented programming.
A concept that has no real properties, is an internally inconsistent concept, for example, something “north of the north pole”, or a “squared circle”.
God’s properties in this Theistic denotation are: “omnipotence”, “omniscience”, “omnipresence”, “omnibenevolence” and “personal cause of our universe”.
I assert that none of these attributes are actually primary. Omnipotence, is a measurement of “potency” and “ability”, but the primary essence of that attributed with omnipotence is not demonstrated by it. Omnipotence would be a secondary property to an entity x, but similar to how “100 degrees” isn’t an individual entity in and of itself; it is a secondary property of said entity. The same can be applied to each an every one of God’s properties.
Without a primary property, there is nothing meaningful that can be said about the concept. Similarly, I can’t talk much of a “squared circle”, because its nature is incomprehensible. However, a concept like a car would be described as “a metal/plastic mass, suspended by four rubber wheels, with an engine”. These would be primary properties which could also have secondary properties, like the fact that it could be 1000kg and a red car.
C3.2 Conclusion
Thus, the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Conclusion
Thus, the resolution is negated. I have shown that it is likely the universe is uncaused, it is more preferable to take stock in other positions (in the absence of direct evidence) and the concept of God is incoherent. All of which convey that Theism is an unsound position.
Over to Pro.
References
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series
[2] Pojman, L (1987) Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, p37 (https://books.google.ie/books?id=1Kctce4XmfEC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=the+universe+existing+as+a+tensed+fact&source=bl&ots=K71-3FFG3w&sig=ACfU3U1wvXfOYM_rBXW67aQFm5H4tJgHzg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm5fOup7DkAhWUonEKHQDSD6cQ6AEwD3oECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20universe%20existing%20as%20a%20tensed%20fact&f=false)
[3] Tim Maudlin (2010), "On the Passing of Time", The Metaphysics Within Physics
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
[6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/
[7] https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html
[8] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/#DetGenDes
[9] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/#PriVsSecPro
C2 There is good reason for Theism (The belief that God exists)
To the first contention I will respond to semperfortis’ reasons to why he asserts that God does not exist in my rebuttal after my second contention.
(2) The Kalam Cosmological Argument
P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3. The universe exists.
Conclusion:
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
Citation:
P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3. The universe exists.
Conclusion:
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
P2: Creatio ex nihilo is impossible (hasn’t been observed) *abductive assumption*
C: An external cause of the universe is impossible
-God’s Properties
- I do not think it proves that a past act could be influenced by the present. The example given about particles collapsing when viewed does not prove a present action changing the past.
- It is a part to whole fallacy. Even if we were to assume it is true, this does not prove the principle that the universe created itself, which is what I think this argument is attempting to justify.
- This creates a paradox. If the past is influenced by the present, then there really is not a past, as it is still in existence being operated on by the present. I explained in my opening why this idea of no past and present is absurd, saying that it flies in the face of everything that we constantly observe. Thus, we cannot accept such a contradiction as a theory of reality.
Premise 2
- Semantics. “Theistic God”-Theism implies a creator of the universe. All other “gods” from pagan mythologies you may be implying are material and do not follow from deductive reasoning.
- I can’t see where you are going with this broken down law causing order thing. The problem here is that the big bang theory goes further saying that the universe didn’t exist before this singularity. That is why we need a cause.
A-Theory vs B-Theory
1. Cosmological Argument from Contingency
Existing by Necessity of its own Nature
Great debate! Pity it didn’t go the distance.
1.) Con - The universe wasn’t caused. - there for no need for God.
This argument is basically that the universe only has a cause if the A theory of time is true (there is a material difference between past and present - evidenced by tensed facts) . This was quite a complex topic to wrap your head around, but actually pretty compelling; con shows (imo) that the a theory of time can’t be true - and refutes causation per that syllogism. Con appears to be arguing a boundless universe; that there is no point in time where the universe isn’t in existent - thus the existence is not tensed.
Pros rebuttal didn’t scratch the surface here; merely arguing that the pro is claiming an absence of change - which isn’t the case. I feel con didn’t do himself any favours though as I feel his explanation was a bit on the complex side. There was back and forth, but nothing pro seemed to offer that dealt with the apparent lack of tensed facts.
Retrocausality was an interesting issue raised by con; arguing that B theory of time theoretically allows events in the future to affect the past. I don’t feel this point was particular compelling - it was a possibility but not one I feel was well enough established to affect the debate.
2.) Occams Razor.
Con argues the premise of parsimony; that if an entity was less than the utmost of key properties, it would be parsimonious; as would the premise of emergence rather than divine creation - the first point was elaborated, but I was hoping for more as to why emergence was more parsimonious.
Pro mostly dismissed Occam’s razor; imo pro has to show that his example is more parsimonious, instead pro appeared to dodge the point.
3.) secondary properties are inconsistent.
Con argues that God as an entity can’t exist as the properties posited are all secondary (like temperature).
I don’t think this is a great argument, as I don’t think that there is any statement that these properties are the only properties. It’s not well refuted by pro who mostly hand waved; so I would consider refuted, but imo it didn’t have warrant.
4.) Argument from contingency.
Pro argues that the universe must have a cause as things within it all have a cause. Con points out that this falls foul of the fallacy of composition; that pro is assuming that the nature of the universe must be the same as the objects within it. There is some back and forth, with an example of a red carpet - which I felt con based away well.
This was enough imo, to invalidate pros argument: note, I didn’t really assess the dichotomy argument con made as even if I assume he’s wrong, the main argument still holds.
5.) KCA
Boiler plate KCA, it’s similar to other examples so won’t waste ink.
- Con argues actual infinities exist, that the issue is that infinite’s seems unintuitive rather than illogical.
- That pro assumes everything requires a cause based on observation - yet pro assumes that things can be created ex-nillio despite the lack of observation.
Imo this ties in with cons statement of fallacy of composition. The Big Bang theory portion of this also appears closely related to B theory of time (no point of creation).
In all these cases con has the edge, or wins all 5 points. Thus arguments to con.
Conduct to con for the forfeits.
50% forfeit by pro
Gist:
It felt like pro (the contender) copy/pasted his case from elsewhere, without proper modification to meet con’s points. This was made very evident when he got caught making points that were pre-refuted without bothering to defend why they would be valid in light of the existing case against them... Needless to say, if an argument is invalid, it cannot be sound.
1. Cosmological Argument
This boiled down to pro asserting something, and con accusing it of being a fallacy of composition, which pro tries to defend with an analogy of if we observe part of something being red we should assume the whole thing is red... Which upholds that the fallacy of composition has been committed, doubling down on it does not change it away from being a fallacy; and thus invalid.
This ends up pointing to contention 2 for proof...
2. KCA
Pro makes this, even when con had pre-refuted it during his opening. He pulls it back to contention 1, when contention 2 was needed to uphold contention 1.
There’s a lot more depth, such as explanations of dark matter, Hilbert’s Hotel and how it does or does not uphold this contention, but pro chooses to drop it all.
3. Uncaused Universe
This section is very lengthy, and mostly dropped even from the start (awhile before the forfeitures)... A highlight from this broad area was pro complaining that he simply did not understand how a causeless universe would not require a cause.
4. Occam’s Razor
This was con hammering away at the four O’s, and ended with con pointing out that pro refused to offer evidence; but instead commits steadfast to special pleading. Given that the resolution is about soundless not just logical validity, pro could have lost the whole case on this.
5. Internal Inconsistencies
Very informative section, which teaches us all about how we misdescribe things by calling them by their secondary instead of primary attributes. Pro fails to understand this section, saying because he says God has secondary properties that those are the primary properties... Con makes short work of this blunder with a car not being defined by being red analogy (tying back to an analogy from pro previously).
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. I could list the various times pro treated his case as a truism, but to what point; he needed to uphold that something was a sound theory, but failed to even show that it was valid.
Sources: con
Twenty vs. zero. Pro's attempts at using sources, were badly broken links, which made it feel like he copy/pasted his early arguments from elsewhere, rather than properly responding to cons points.
Con’s explanation of the Hilbert’s Hotel and how it’s not a real paradox but an intuitive trick, was a strong note, as it was highly effective use of sources to outright flip part of pro’s case; which pro then chose to wholly drop.
Conduct: con
Multiple forfeitures.