Pros opening argument expands and repeats the logical error I point out in my first contention:
The very most we can infer from the KCA is that a cause is sufficient and external. After all if it is neither external nor sufficient, it’s likely not possible for it to be a cause. This makes pros points (1) and maybe half of (2) fairly reasonable.
Point (3), is where his issues begin.
How does Pro justify why the KCA requires the cause to be personal?
Pro offers no argument or justification at all as to exactly why this cause must be personal, and offers no reasoning as to how personality can be inferred from the KCA.
Worse, pro offered no justification as to why the Cause must be Omnipotent either - omnipotent means maximally powerful: nothing in the formulation of the KCA requires the cause to be more than merely sufficient.
The same goes for Omniscience: Where in the KCA is it inferred that then cause is in all places at the same time?
And omni-benevolent too: where does anything moralistic figure into this first cause: For what reason does pro believe the KCA warrants an omni-benevolent entity?
Even casting aside semantic arguments about strict definitions of God and the meaning of these terms- pros formulation has failed to support the idea that the cause has any defined property of God listed in this debates definition with the exception of being timeless.
Pro merely re-iterates his claims in his rebuttal - and largely ignores all these failures in justification that I specifically outlined in round 1.
I would submit that if pro is unable to provide justification for how we can infer that the cause of the universe is personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent and omnipresent from his formulation of the KCA in his final rebuttal round- then the he has failed to meet his burden that the KCA is sound - and a vote for Con is necessary
C1a: God is More probable
In his rebuttal, pro adds that even if my contention were true - and all these properties of God were unwarranted, God would still be more probable than my framework. There are a few issues with this claim:
Firstly: pro offers no justification for why he feels God is more probable - nor can he. We don’t even have the information about the true nature of reality required to determine whether God is even possible, leave alone estimate the chances of God to a sufficient degree to claim it is more probable than any other of the infinite set of potential solutions. Pro cannot simply claim one solution is more probable than any others without explanation.
Secondly: Pro misses the point of the analogy. The hoofprints are analogous to the universe, if one presumes hoofprints have a cause, without more information, one can only infer that the object that made it was something that had hooves. The analogy is there to highlight that the KCA infers more properties from the hoof print than is warranted.
C2: P1 is unsound due to appeal to common sense.
Pro largely ignores my entire second contention about how undeniably faulty our common sense intuition is, and requests that I provide evidence as to why our common sense should be ignored in this case.
I refer pro back to this same second contention. There I outline in great detail all the ways in which our intuition and common sense have comprehensively failed. In short - common sense should not be relied upon [2]
If the universe has violated our common sense repeatedly - upon what grounds does pro think it should be relied upon now?
We have no direct information or evidence upon which to base fundamental claims about how the nature of reality and causality can work outside of our universe and its laws[1]. As such pro cannot otherwise support his claims about the validity of P1 - and arguing that I must provide evidence to refute the claims he cannot support is merely shifting the burden of proof.
If Pro offers no other reason to consider P1 true other than a faulty appeal to common sense in his final rebuttal round - then my contention 2 clearly undermines P1, and thus the KCA is unsound.
C2a : Something from nothing
Pro rounds this rebuttal off with an argument from incredulity - asking how can something come from nothing? And argues that infinite regress is impossible.
Firstly, as I point out in my first contention, even if it is not possible for something to come from nothing, this doesn’t mean the KCA warrants God - the universe existing within some timeless super-dimension with physics that are sufficient to allow it to exist - would solve the KCA without itself being personal, the four Os, and a maximally great being - and this is merely one of many possible alternatives.
Secondly and most importantly, with this reply, pro misses the key point:
I can offer no reason why something could come from nothing, nor can I offer reasons why infinite regress is possible. But I can also offer no logical reason as to exactly how something could exist timelessly and eternally without cause. I strongly suspect that pro is unable to do so either.
This is the crux of my second contention.
The idea of something being able to exist eternally without is as equally nonsensical and unprovable as something coming from nothing - pro is implicitly arguing that we should presume that the former is more reasonable on the grounds of our common sense and logical intuition. Which as I have shown, cannot be used in this sphere to determine truth in the absence of other evidence.
As a result, pro must provide some compelling rationale for why his claims of P1 are supported other than through this common sense intuition, otherwise he can not support the soundness of P1.
C2b: something from nothing - vacuous truth.
Pro also argues in his opening round, and twice in his rebuttal that something cannot come from nothing, and bases this mostly off us never having observed this occurring.
This is true - but its a vacuous truth[3] because we have never observed “nothing” - even a complete lack of anything contains something![4] - note another violation of common sense. It isn’t the case we have failed measurements - simply no measurements at all.
Turning the argument on its head - Pro has no examples of a supreme deity creating anything either. Nor do we have any examples of Chuck Norris round-house kicking the universe into existence.
The idea that one set of solutions can be rejected on the grounds of no evidence, yet we must accept another solution which has no evidence either is not logically coherent.
As I have argued above, this is fundamentally the problem with pros support for P1, and why P1 should be rejected as unsupported.
3: Minor points
Pro states in his previous round:
“Finally we know that an infinite regress or an infinite is impossible”
“We have strong reason to believe that the cause is an infinite cause”
Pros appears to be arguing that an infinite cannot exist whilst also arguing that we have strong reason to believe it can. Pro cannot have it both ways. If he is conceding that infinite’s can exist, than he undermines P1 which implicitly relies upon infinite regress and infinities being impossible.
“God, by very definition and logically induced from the KCA is entirely nonphysical.”
Pro should provide a justification for why the KCA infers a “non-physical cause”, this is similar to the issue I raise with my first contention.
As pro is using this to reject other possible solutions, the introduction of the “non-physical” property means pro is effectively begging the question.
Pro also argues that Chuck Norris cannot be the cause of the universe, as it assumes corporeality. Pro does not explain why this is the case. Why can the Christian God satisfy the KCA - yet a timeless, eternal, all powerful Chuck Norris who’s protrusion into our corporeal realm is merely a projection of himself, cannot?
Conclusion.
My argument against the KCA clearly refutes that the KCA is evidence of God from both ends.
Firstly - as I pointed out and continued here, the KCA provides no argument or inference that any cause of the universe is much more than simply external and sufficient - leave along a maximally great being.
Pros rebuttal lacked in any clarification or substance to this effect, and largely drops the issue I point out: thus contention 1 still stands.
Secondly - I clearly explain why P1 is reliant on common sense, and go on to justify why there is no way of supporting that claim without common sense.
As pro offers no other justification - common sense can be thoroughly dismissed for the reasons raised in round 1 - and which pro has not addressed. As a result we must conclude that P1 is unsound.
It is for these reasons a vote for con is wholly warranted.
I hand you back to pro for his final rebuttal round!
Hey you're coming off the bench...good luck.