Blog Wars! Round 2: The Rebuttal

The following is a response to Cody Cook's opening statement in this debate, which can be found here:  http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html

 

In his opening argument, Mr. Cook explains the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” by postulating a dichotomy between things that exist necessarily and things that exist contingently, or as a result of a cause.  I will grant that this is a true dichotomy.  However, my objection to his conclusion is two-fold:

1. Mr. Cook claims that a god exists necessarily, but this is not true or consistent with the description of that god. 
2. Mr. Cook claims that the cause of the universe must be a conscious decision by a being capable of decision-making, which is not consistent with what we know about Big Bang cosmology. 

Why god does not exist necessarily

That a god exists necessarily is a major assertion, but Mr. Cook provides absolutely no evidence to support it.  Why is the existence of god a necessity, like numbers, logical absolutes or the laws of physics?   There is no reason to suppose this is so.  That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I am tempted to do this.  However, while there are no good reasons to believe Mr. Cook’s assertion, there are at least two good reasons to dismiss it:

1. God has traits that do not exist necessarily
2. Something that is omnipotent cannot exist necessarily

God Has Traits That Do Not Exist Necessarily

Mr. Cook and I agree that certain things, such as numbers and logical absolutes, exist necessarily.  So how can I assert that a god could not be also counted amongst those things?  Simply because no other thing that exists necessarily has a mind.  The number seven, lucky though it may be, possesses no thoughts, emotions or instincts.  Anything that does possess such attributes also possesses a causal explanation for them.  Human and animal thoughts, emotions and instincts are explained by neurology and evolution.  Because thoughts, emotions and instincts are contingent rather than necessary in every instance that is available for us to examine, Mr. Cook takes on the burden of proof to demonstrate how this rule could be violated.  So far, we have heard just an assertion with no evidence. 

The Logical Paradox Necessity and Omnipotence

Furthermore, in the conclusion to his opening statement, Mr. Cook asserts that “god exists because He must. He can’t do otherwise.”  Of course, this statement presents a stark contradiction with the omnipotent nature of a god.  Allow me to present it like this:

1. Anything omnipotent would have the power to cease its own existence.
2. Anything necessary cannot cease to exist.
3. Nothing omnipotent can exist necessarily. 

This paradox is something that Mr. Cook must own up to if he continues to assert that a god exists necessarily. 

Why the cause of the universe does not have to be personal

Mr. Cook demonstrated that the universe must exist as a result of a cause.  I agree.  However, Mr. Cook also invokes the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument to explain that god is the only possible cause.  This is where he is mistaken.

Mr. Cook justifies Premise 2 of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (“If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God”) in the following way:

“Big bang cosmology has shown us that the universe began to exist at a finite point in time, which suggests that it could have not come into existence at all. In other words, it does not have to exist.”

Mr. Cook goes on to explain that, since the universe began to exist at a certain point in time, and therefore had not existed at some point in time, it requires a decision-making agent in order to bring it into existence.  If the premise that the universe did, in fact, begin to exist at a certain point in time, and time passed during which the universe did not exist, then Mr. Cook may have been justified in asserting the necessity of a decision-making agent in order to bring the universe into existence at some point in time.  

However, a simple understanding of the nature of time itself completely destroys this line of thinking.  The Big Bang most definitely was not an event that took place at a certain point in time.  It was the explosion of both space and time into existence.  Einstein demonstrated this—it is one of the things he is best known for.  Time is not an absolute that exists before the universe; it is something that exists only as a feature of a universe that has space.  The equation that we all learned in high school physics demonstrates this:

Speed=Distance/Time

Therefore, Time=Distance/Speed 

Time requires distance to exist.  Distance requires space.  Space did not exist before the Big Bang.  Time, therefore, did not exist prior to the Big Bang.  Since this basic piece of science completely destroys the notion that the universe began to exist at a certain point in time, a decision making agent is no longer necessary in order to cause the universe.  A choice is not necessary, because no time passed before the universe began to exist.  A god, then, cannot be considered as the only potential cause for the universe. 

We can now see that Mr. Cook’s assertion that god is the best answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” completely falls apart.  Since I have some extra space, though, I will go on to discuss the less relevant claims Mr. Cook made in his opening remarks. 

Fine-Tuning?

As I said in my opening statement, the position most atheists will take is that the universe was not designed for life—life emerged as the result of the universe being the way it is.  If traits of the universe had been different, the features of it would have been different, too.  Perhaps there would not have been planets on which life as we know it could have formed, perhaps something similar to life would have formed in some other way, or perhaps something far more interesting and beautiful would have emerged.  We will never know.  But for Mr. Cook to assert, in light of this position, that the universe has the “hallmarks of design” with one species of primate on our pale blue dot in the mind of the designer, seems as ludicrous as someone taking a pair of sunglasses, noticing how well they fit on the human face, and then calling this evidence for the idea that the human face was designed by Sunglass Hut!  It is completely backwards.

Furthermore, as I explained in the first point of my opening argument, while the Earth may seem moderately hospitable to us, the universe as a whole definitely is not.  Most of it is constructed of empty space, which is deadly to us.  The vast majority of planets in the universe, even if any of them are hospitable to us, are simply too far away to reach in a human lifetime.  Any planets within our reach are also deadly to us.  If Mr. Cook and I were having this debate on either of our two closest planetary neighbors, Venus or Mars, I imagine the first (and only) thing Mr. Cook would say would be something to the effect of, “well, this place is not very well designed for me at all” before we were both promptly melted into puddles by sulfuric acid rain or frozen in place, respectively. 

The fact of the matter is the universe is decidedly poorly designed for life.  Life is rather well-equipped to survive only on our tiny planet, and that can be attributed to evolution by natural selection. 

Quote-Mining

In his opening statement, I was surprised to see Mr. Cook quote Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins out of context in a way that misrepresents them as puzzled about the supposed “fine-tuning” of the universe.  In fact, anyone who reads either of their works will know this is far from true.  While this point is largely irrelevant to the debate, I would like to make sure it is acknowledged because this technique is used frequently by Christians seeking to discredit science. 

Anyone who has read a popular book on science will know the typical structure of a chapter:  The author lays out a common question or misunderstanding (called a Problem Statement) and proceeds to explain the solution to the problem in the rest of the chapter.  Mr. Cook takes the problem statements given by both Hawking and Dawkins in their respective works and presents them as if they were genuine problems that neither scientist understands.  This is called quote-mining and it is widely regarded as an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device, but (or, dare I say, so) it is characteristic of religious writers.  I was disappointed to see Mr. Cook implement it in this debate.  I encourage everyone reading to look up the context of these quotes for themselves.   

Summary

As I have explained here, Mr. Cook fails to establish his basic premise in two major areas:

1. A god cannot exist necessarily, because aspects associated with a god, like a mind and omnipotence, are in contradiction with necessary existence. 
2. A decision-making agent is not necessary as a cause for the universe because the Big Bang did not occur at a specific point in time—it was the explosion of space and time into existence. 

These two main points, along with the other, dubious claims made by Mr. Cook in his opening statement, demonstrate that his case is too weak for him to be considered the winner of this debate.  Thank you for reading.

My opponent's rebuttal to my opening argument can be found here:  http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-is-there-something-rather-than_25.html