Thank you, Bones, for your arguments and rebuttals.
1. Rebuttal: Pro’s charge of dropped arguments: special relativity, pre-requisites for causation.
a. My opponent will please acknowledge that rebuttals may occur in any round. An opponent is not required to follow an argument with rebuttal in the succeeding round, only. The purpose of both argument and rebuttal is the convincing of reader/voter, and not to convince the opponent.
2. Defense: Con argument of passé A/B time and general relativity
a. My opponent charged that just because an idea has been dismissed as passé does not mean it no longer has relevance.
b. The relevance is challenged in both arguments, just as geocentricity, and heliocentricity were relegated to failed theory status once the greater structure of the solar system, first, and later the galaxy, our Milky Way, second, and third, the universe beyond, understood to exist in similar patterns of structure and motion, as part of a greater expanse of galactic and then universal structure.
c. Many of the points of light, previously thought to be mere, singular stars in the night sky, were discovered to be whole galaxies, themselves, and not fixed points, but in motion, and subsequently that all are part of the expanding universe. That gravity operates in them on a consistent basis, notwithstanding, that does not guarantee B-theory time.
d. Pro offers gravity as evidence of A/B time, yet Pro then claims “time is tenseless,” i.e., Pro claims time does not consist of past, present, future. No, that is exactly what time is; we register the sequential nature of time. It is eternity that is tenseless. Time is, by its measureable consistency, finite in its separate segments of past, present, future. There simply is no measurement of eternity by tense, by clock, or by calendar.
e. But, by the Pro claim that gravity is an enduring recognized force, are we necessarily to conclude that B-time is also an enduring force at work in the universe? Pro claims, “The B theory of time simply stipulates that time is tenseless.” No, as shown above, 2.d, eternity, not time, is tenseless. Pro claims, “…the B theory only dictates time related events.” Which is the exact opposite of his earlier claim. Time-related events are not tenseless at all, and Pro confirms this by explaining the impossibility of seeing two events occurring at separate times simultaneously. Since Pro contradicts his own argument within a few sentences, I need say no more. I agree; B-theory time is not supportable, and, therefore, cannot support the Topic.
f. Let’s close the book on A-theory time: I don’t buy it, either. Can we let that dead dog die?
g. I will address general relativity, special relativity, prerequisite causation, retrocausality, becausality, and even warp speed in a space-time continuum between Earth and Vulcan, collectively, in R3. It is a very simple rebuttal of consequence.
3. Defense: When did time begin?[i]
a. Pro’s round 2 rebutted, “No where in the article (my citation i in 3, above, and cited several times in my round 1) does Dr. Veneziano postulate that the "preexisting state" can be credited to that which is supernatural.” And? Veneziano’s article does not attempt to broach the subject of the supernatural, so, what point, exactly, is Pro trying to make obvious?
b. Pro is attempting to promote time as the primary argument that a deity cannot exist, let alone any state of the universe prior to the Big Bang, the point at which, allegedly, according to Pro, time began, and proceeds forward as Pro’s round 1 argument says, in a singular, forward direction. Pro further says, as noted above, that Veneziano avoids the subject of the supernatural. He also does not make any mention of dark matter, or even Casper the Ghost. By the way, Pro’s Topic makes no mention of time, either.
c. However, the Veneziano article’s subtitle expresses the true point of the article; not avoidance, but a reversal of thought: “String theory suggests that the BIG BANG was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state.” As the acknowledged father of string theory, I trust this man’s claim.
d. I argued in round 1, that the universe, suggested by string theory, cycles through multiple iterations of expansion and contraction. We exist presently in one of those cycles. There was already existence prior to the initiating events of this current cycle, i.e., previous cycles, and there will be subsequent cycles, as well. Eternity of cycles; Pro’s real tenseless, timeless condition. Not A-time, B-time, or any other alpha-designated time.
e. By definition, in round 1, I argued, agreeing with Pro’s definition, that supernatural uses science as a springboard, allowing that supernatural is beyond what is nature. Pro failed to define either term, science and nature, which I did in round 1, demonstrating that neither claim truth as territory, but only that which is observable and experimentable.
f. The KCA argues, simply, that things which begin to exist have cause, such as the beginning of a universe’s expansion cycle. There being a previous cycle by the argument of string theory, a supernatural deity can have already been in that previous existence to cause the beginning of a new expansion cycle. This would imply the potential of multiple deities? Yes, of course. Multiple cycles yields multiple gods.
g. However, one must consider, which Pro has not, to date, my trailing question of round 1:“What if a deity resides within the scope of nature, and not superlative to it?”
4. Argument: KCA and Newton
a. St. Thomas Aquinas proposed Five Ways in the effort to demonstrate the existence of God.[ii]
The First Way, called “God, the Prime Mover” was based upon an Aristotelian principle that, “whatever is in motion is moved by another.”[iii]
b. If that sounds strikingly Newtonian, it is because Newton was an Aristotelian. Newton’s First Law: “…if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.”[iv]
c. Therefore, The first premise of KCA, as cited by Pro, is, “1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”[v]
These three statements cited in a., b., c. are all saying the same thing: universal cause of motion. Even if Aristotle, Aquinas, and KCA, are deemed “unscientific,” Newton is certainly accepted science. One may argue that Newton was not in any way arguing for an initial deity-as-mover, however, to deny that he discussed the matter, or had no beliefs on the matter, are fallacious.
d. Newton states plainly: “Does it not appear from phenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space . . . sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly.”[vi]
5. Argument: What if a deity resides within the scope of nature, and not superlative to it?
a. A deity resides within the scope of nature, as nature is defined, since its definition does not offer limits on its scope. I purposefully leave “deity” out of definition, because I will not presume to be enabled with that definition. I simply maintain that our scope of knowledge is limited, with more knowledge to be gained in every direction of either cardinal points of a compass, or a more extensive alphabetic classification than described simply by the Roman alphabet, particularly relative to Pro’s favored subject.
b. I have not in any way violated Pro’s definition of “supernatural” except by challenging that nature, itself, is not limited, and that we apply “super-“ to natural only to do what man has done since pre-history: expand our body of knowledge while recognizing that there is more knowledge to be had, currently unknown.
c. I therefore declare Pro’s Topic as defeated, since the applications of his definitions to the Topic simply do not successfully support the Topic, nor Pro’s arguments.
d. Why not? Because “supernatural” is a term implying that something beyond nature exists, yet makes no effort to propose a theory as to that existence. One might as well call “supernatural” a condition of ex nihilo nihil fit,
the argument of “nothing comes of nothing.”[vii]
Pro defeats his own argument by exercising reductio ad absurdum;[viii]
absurdity by denial.
Isaac Newton, Opticks
, 4th ed. (London: William Innys, 1730), pg. 344; spelling and punctuation modernized.