The Prime Mover Debate

I recently exchanged a few tweets with an Christian apologist on twitter. As it turns out: we couldn't agree on very much. So I suggested that the topic was too big for a 140 character limit. He then politely referred me to his blog which contains an excellent pre-fabricated debate format. I chose the topic of "first cause", a popular point of contention between atheists and theists.  The debate format is as follows:

1 Introduction (1500 words or less) per debater.
1 long rebuttal (1000 words or less) per debater.
1 short rebuttal (750 words or less) per debater.
(This dialogue is temporarily suspended after short rebuttal)
3 questions posed for the other debater to answer (the answer to the 3 questions will be in 750 total words or less) per debater.
1 closing statement to end the debate (500 words or less) per debater.

The person who is making the affirmative case (depending on the topic) will make the first introduction while the other will make the last conclusion.

I think this is a fantastic idea. My Co-debater is Mr. Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com and he was kind enough to send a link to his debate introduction which was posted on his blog. A link is provided in my introduction below. We shall continue the debate, posting our responses on our own blogs until the debate is complete. With Mr. Busheys permission, I shall post the debate in its entirety after it is complete.

So without further ado.

I recommend reading Mr. Bushey's 1500 introduction first and it can be viewed here: http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/01/is-a-prime-mover-necessary/

.... mine is posted below.

Introduction

For centuries, without empirical data, philosophers and theologians have pondered the origin of the universe.  Theists claim that certain philosophical arguments like the Kalam Cosmological are philosophical proof of a supernatural primary mover, that is: an uncaused-cause which exists necessarily, outside of space-time, and initiated the causal chain of our universe.  Most even take it a step further to provide philosophical proof that this primary mover must be a personal being.
  Proponents of this logic, like Mr. Bushey of Thereforegodexists.com use several tactics to solidify the premises similar to that of the Kalam.  All of which can be found here at his blog post containing his debate introduction. In typical Kalam form he begins by demonstrating logical absurdities to prove that the infinite doesn't exist in reality, therefore it would follow, that past events, since they are real, must be finite.  Bushey leads the reader to his conclusion that the universe must be caused by something transcendental. This is accomplished by giving the false dilemma that the only two solutions which could have caused the universe are a transcendental personal being or a spontaneous origin of time, space and matter from nothingness. Claiming that spontaneous creation from nothingness is not logical, Bushey states that the only other option for a conclusion follows necessarily. 

Despite the arguments put forward by Mr. Bushey, It is my firm position that the logic behind behind his primary mover argument is flawed. Furthermore I claim that it is far more likely that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe than a personal being who is transcendental or supernatural, known here as the "Primary Mover".

Objections

My first of contention with Bushey's argument is the conclusion that the infinite doesn't exist in reality.  Admittedly I’m not qualified to disprove the math behind the Hilbert Hotel Paradox, nor do i have a reason to doubt the math behind it. However, it could be argued that math behind the statements "there are vacancies" and "there are no vacancies" could actually be true in terms of the infinite.  This is not as preposterous as it may seem. If the math works in both cases, and the conclusion is true in the context of numbers.  I have no reason to doubt that it would be true in reality. There are many examples of quantum phenomenon that defy logic in a very similar way by possessing a completely counter intuitive, illogical nature, yet remain fully verified by math and experimentation. Based on that fact, it does seem that empirical data and mathematics hold more weight than philosophical arguments. Imagine if we disregarded the most accurate mathematics known to man (quantum mechanics) because it produced philosophical absurdities! Please check out Schrodinger’s Cat if you are not familiar with the philosophical absurdities produced by quantum mechanics. Note that I am not claiming that everything which is mathematically possible is possible in reality.  Nor am I claiming that philosophy alone cannot arrive at truths. I am claiming that if something is mathematically possible and simultaneously illogical, it can still exist in reality. It then follows that the arguments presented by Bushey against the existence of infinity in reality are not sufficient to support his conclusion and therefore: it has not been proven that the universe must have a finite past.

What Does Science Say About A Finite Past?

The Big Bang Singularity is the primary empirical path chosen by many theists to give scientific proof of a finite past. The whole theory of big bang singularity depends on matter at a state of infinite heat, infinite pressure, infinite mass etc.  Ironically, if Bushey's philosophical arguments against infinity were true, they would disprove the one empirical theory that supports his claims.  Perhaps it would be helpful to shed light on some of the confusion about the Big Bang and its implications. Since this confusion is where I believe a lot of theistic ideas find refuge. 

There are two Big Bang theories: The Big Bang Phase and The Big Bang Singularity.

Which is which? 

The Big Bang Phase Theory is supported by a ton of evidence and there is good reason to believe that yes, the universe went through a period of rapid, accelerated expansion called inflation, which began as early as 10^-43 seconds after what is called The Big Bang Singularity. The Singularity however is completely theoretical.  Before 10^-43 seconds the math involved in general relativity which gives us the Big Bang Phase begins to break down and the models produce seemingly nonsensical numbers.  This is why most cosmologists would be very surprised if the singularity took place. 

The scientific layperson often has misconceptions about what really took place during "the big bang."  Many people think the theory claims that all of the universe, space and matter was compressed to a finite point and exploded outward like a bomb. This article in Scientific American  thoroughly explains away that misconception. Here are some excerpts

“The big bang was not an explosion in space; it was more like an explosion of space. It did not go off at a particular location and spread out from there into some imagined preexisting void. It occurred everywhere at once.”

Continuing to explain…..

“This ubiquity of the big bang holds no matter how big the universe is or even whether it is finite or infinite in size. Cosmologists sometimes state that the universe used to be the size of a grapefruit, but what they mean is that the part of the universe we can now see--our observable universe--used to be the size of a grapefruit. Observers living in the Andromeda galaxy and beyond have their own observable universes that are different from but overlap with ours. ……….Their observable universe also used to be the size of a grapefruit. Thus, we can conceive of the early universe as a pile of overlapping grapefruits that stretches infinitely in all directions. Correspondingly, the idea that the big bang was "small" is misleading. The totality of space could be infinite. Shrink an infinite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infinite.”

I hope that this clarifies two specific points:

1. The concept of infinity is widely accepted by cosmologist as a reality.

2. Neither big bang theory says anything about where matter, space and time came from. They certainly do not imply spontaneously popping into existence out of nothingness. 

More objections

Even if it were clear from Bushey’s argument that the past is finite, there is no reason to conclude that origin of the universe occurred precisely before the big bang.  Conceivably there could be many events and causes prior to the big bang phase. 

But what did cause the big bang?  On that note Bushey states: “Being the cause of literal space, and time, it must be beyond space, and time. It must be timeless and spaceless.” We then are given the false dilemma that the only two conceivable options fitting those characteristics are “abstract objects, and personal objects.”  The limited choice seems to be more the result of poor creativity rather than logical necessity but let’s explore these anyway. Abstract objects I will concede have no causal authority. Bushey describes a personal object as a transcending being that causes with intention, makes choices and acts of free will.  I feel this is a poor solution; intentions, choice, will and actions depend upon space and time for their meaning.  A choice implies a consideration of options. What does it mean to consider and act without time?  And it acts from where without space? Intentions, considerations, choices and actions are being extrapolated onto a scenario where words lose meaning.  There can be no “before” time.  It’s like stating something is north of the North Pole. Similarly there can be no state of spaceless-ness, as if there is some void outside of space-time from which a thing can exist.  This notion exists due to a flaw in language. Simply because one can write the words time-less and space-less in a coherent sentence does not mean the concepts exist any reality. 

Conclusion

Many cosmologists propose the existence of multiple universes. Others propose a type of cyclic universe. Seperate universes and cyclic universes have their own space and time and therefore: causal authority, making them far more tangible candidates for the title of cause-of-our-universe, unlike supernatural entities, which are obligated to choose, act and create a universe mysteriously without time and space. Even if we gave ourselves a new false dilemma of “multiverse” or “primary mover” as the only choice for truth, we should find it exceedingly more likely that the natural explanation is true. Our human minds have solved 13.7 billion years worth of riddles by natural means. Not ONE established fact of the natural world depends on a transcendent being or a supernatural explanation. Indeed, it would be folly to entertain a supernatural idea now, in the face of this enormous trend of natural explanation.