I want to begin by welcoming my opponent to debatecraft. I am looking forward to a fruitful exchange.

I. Framework

Both theism and naturalism makes specific claims about the universe and also makes specific testable predictions. I contend that we should define "best explanation" as which framework gives us the most parsimonious account for the data across the domains of science, philosophy, ethics, logic etc. By parsimony I mean favoring the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions or entities to explain a phenomenon and provides for the most coherent framework. With that said let's begin.

II. Theism best explains existence

The most foundational question in metaphysics is why is there something rather than nothing? In philosophy we distinguish between several kinds of entities:

1. A contingent entity: An entity that could exist but could also fail to exist. This entity exists in some possible worlds but not others and requires an explanation for why it exists external to it.
2. A necessary entity: An entity that exists in all possible worlds, exists by its own nature, and does not require an external explanation for its existence.
3. An impossible entity: An entity that exists in no possible worlds such as a square circle.

The universe has all the hallmarks of a contingent entity because it had a cosmic beginning and thus requires an explanation for its existence external to it. The question is is why is theism a better explanation for the cosmic beginning than a natural explanation? For that I will offer two arguments: The Leibniz's Cosmological Argument and the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

A. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation.
2. The universe has an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
3. The universe exists
4. Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2,4)
6. Therefore, God (a necessary being) exists.

Premise 1 is a statement of the principle of sufficient reason: For every fact F , there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case.

Premise 2 seems to be fairly logical. If the sum of everything that exists is contingent then something that is not contingent is required to explain why it exists.

Premise 3 is fairly obvious.

Premise 4: This conclusion is unavoidable

P5-6: The contingent universe must be explained by a necessary being and this being is what people refer to as God.

B. The KCA

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Going back to the PSR we know that If something begins to exist then it is not necessary, it is contingent. Contingent entities require an external explanation for their existence.

P2 has been scientifically proven. The universe is not static and has not always existed. Dr. Stephen Hawkings noted:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth.

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson also admits:

Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, the universe continues to evolve. And yes, every one of our body’s atoms is traceable to the big bang and to the thermonuclear furnace within high-mass stars. We are not simply in the universe, we are part of it. We are born from it. One might even say we have been empowered by the universe to figure itself out—and we have only just begun.

This leads to an inevitable conclusion that the universe has a cause and why should we conclude that the cause is God? We are warranted to believe this because:

1. The cause must be necessary (ie not contingent)
2. The cause must be extraordinarily powerful to be able to bring an entire universe into existence ex nihilio.
3. The cause must be transcendent and exist beyond space and time.

II. Theism best explains design

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, it's due to design

This is the famous teleological argument that asks the question "Why is the universe so finely tuned?" There are only three reasons why the universe appears fined-tune and if we can eliminate one or more options then we can determine the true cause of the fine tuning of the universe. If we can reasonably rule out law or chance then that leaves only design as the only viable option left.

A. Fine tuning explained

If the universe's constants were off by just a fraction then the universe would be life-prohibiting. For example, if the cosmological constant, gravitation forces, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, etc. were off by just a fraction then the universe would expand either too rapidly or not enough to allow stars, galaxies, and planets to form. Dr. Ethan Siegl notes the following [1].

A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms. Yet not only has our Universe neither recollapsed nor failed to yield atoms, but even today, some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, those two sides of the equation appear to be perfectly in balance.

If we extrapolate this back to a very early time — say, one nanosecond after the hot Big Bang — we find that not only do these two sides have to balance, but they have to balance to an extraordinary precision. The Universe's initial expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of matter and energy in the Universe not only need to balance, but they need to balance to more than 20 significant digits. It's like guessing the same 1-to-1,000,000 number as me three times in a row, and then predicting the outcome of 16 consecutive coin-flips immediately afterwards.

Further tests will determine whether our best conclusion at present truly provides the ultimate answer, but we cannot just wave the problem away. The Universe really is finely tuned, and our existence is all the proof we need.

And this is just one of many fundamental constants and features of the universe that needs to be perfectly fine tuned for a life-permitting universe to arise.

So what is the best explanation for this? Again, we have three options: law, chance, or design. Let's try and eliminate two of these options:

A. Law/Necessity

There is no known physical laws stating why these constants are the way they are. There's zero reason to believe that they could not have been different. We can safely eliminate this option.

B. Chance

The fact that our universe is so fine-tuned the chances of this happening are astronomically small. Dr. Sigel further notes "it's our duty to seek out an explanation. Perhaps the outcome truly is a coincidence, but that should only be a conclusion we reach if we cannot find any other scientific explanation."

C. Design

Given that we just eliminated two of our three options there's only one left: The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

Conclusion

In science we should go with the option that is the most parsimonious to the evidence. When we look at the fine tuning of the universe I believe we can safely say design is the most parsimonious option.

III. Theism Best Explains Morality

1. If objective moral facts exist then God exists
2. Objective moral facts exist
3. Therefore, God exists

I will start with defending premise 2: Objective moral facts are moral facts that are independent of human minds. Under moral realism statements like rape is wrong and murder is wrong have the properties of being either true or false, much like the statement the sky is blue. Why think morality is objective? 1) objective morality best explains moral progress. Intuitively we know that slavery and segregation were wrong and society progressed by abolishing slavery and segregation. But why? 1) If morals were not mind-independent then one cannot make such claims. One could easily argue that it was wrong to take peoples property and to force white businesses to serve black customers and thus are actually progressing backwards. 2) Objective morality best explains why we feel moral outrage. When we see things like the holocaust and genocide we are rightfully outraged. But why? If morality were subjective then we have no right to condemn other cultures for those things.

So why should we believe p1? If moral realism is true, that means there is a mind-independent source of morality that transcends humanity and is morally perfect. This source also must be rational as moral judgements require the ability to think. The moral source also must be powerful and authoritative that can compel humanity to act in a certain manner. This entity is what we call God.

IV. Conclusion

Any framework must account for why we exist, the design in the universe, and ethics. Theism does this better than naturalism and thus the resolution stands affirmed.

I want to welcome my opponent once again to debatecraft and thank him for his speedy reply. With that, let's begin.

DEFENSE

I. Framework

I began with a simple framework and a criteria for which this debate ought to be judged. That framework is which worldview has the most explanatory and most parsimonious explanation. My opponent never offered a competing framework so please use this framework when judging this debate.

II. The KCA

My opponent begins by attacking the KCA:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

The argument is sound if and only if both premises are true and the argument is valid. My opponent only challenged the conclusion and never challenged either premise therefore both premises are dropped.

My opponent's rebuttal tells me he didn't read my arguments or simply didn't understand them. To re-iterate, I gave several reasons why we are warranted to believe that the cause is God:

1. The cause must be necessary (ie not contingent)
2. The cause must be extraordinarily powerful to be able to bring an entire universe into existence ex nihilio.
3. The cause must be transcendent and exist beyond space and time.

All 3 points are dropped so please extend all 3 points. If the universe began to exist then that cause must exist outside of the universe.

III. Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Once again only one of the premises are actually challenged. Here is the argument again:

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation.
2. The universe has an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being. - Drops
3. The universe exists - Drops
4. Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3) - Drops
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2,4) - drops
6. Therefore, God (a necessary being) exists.

My opponent challenged the PSR and seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic. First, God does have an explanation for His existence. The explanation is in the necessity of His own nature. In other words, God exists because He has to exist and cannot fail to exist.

Second, my opponent gave us no reason to deny the PSR. Denying the PSR completely undermines the scientific enterprise. Let me illustrate with this parable: My opponent and I are police officers and are walking in the forest. We come across a fresh dead body that has all the hallmarks of a murder victim. We secure the scene and begin our investigation. Some time later we come across a person who is covered in blood and is carrying a knife that matches the stab wounds. When we question the person about the body they state "This body is there are a brute fact. There doesn't need an explanation for why that body is there or why their stab wounds happen to match my knife!" Would you accept this response? Of course not! If we assume that not everything requires an explanation then this begs the question: Why and when do some things require an explanation and others don't. Thus we are warranted to accept the PSR.

IV. Fine Tuning

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, it's due to the design

My opponent's only objection is the first premise and accuses this of being a false trilemma. If my opponent claims it is a false trilemma then it is up to my opponent to come up with a fourth possibility which they do not do. To define those terms:

1. design: the fine tuning was designed by an intelligent creator
2. Law: The universe's fine tuning is necessary and couldn't be any other way
3. Chance: We are simply very lucky

Any other explanation will usually end up collapsing back into law or chance. If my opponent argues that it is a false trilemma then they need to come up with an alternative explanation.

V. Moral Argument

This is completely dropped by con. Please extend this across the board.

REBUTTALS

1) Naturalism is more straightforward and requires no extraneous

This is completely false. For example, many naturalist appeal to the multiverse to explain fine tuning. By doing so they create quadrillions of multiverses that are unfalsifiable and required for one life permitting universe (and that doesn't even guarantee that it will contain life)!

2) Naturalism is scientific

First opponent confuses methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. The fact that methodological naturalism works is completely predicted by Theism. Second, Theism is not based on assertions. This is a strawman fallacy. Theism is a metaphysical framework that seeks to explain the reasons for contingencies, ethics, fine tuning, etc. None of these are merely assertions.

3) Naturalism permits explanations to develop as new findings emerge

Again false. Theism absolutely does permit modifications and improvements. If, for example, it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that naturalism is far better at explaining those foundations than theism then we would be right to abandon theism for naturalism.

The Naturalistic Explanation (Theory)

Premise 1: Everything in the universe operates according to natural laws and processes.

Premise 2: Natural laws and processes are sufficient to explain observed phenomena without assuming supernatural beings.

Premise 3: Supernatural explanations, such as God, are unnecessary if natural explanations are possible.

Conclusion: Hence, naturalism offers a simpler, more trustworthy, and scientifically grounded approach to understanding the world than theism.

The biggest problem with this argument is premise #2. My opponent asserts that natural laws are sufficient to explain observed phenomena. That said, if theism can provide a far more parsimonious explanation than naturalism then we are warranted in rejecting premise 2. Lastly, Theism does a far better job in explaining why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is so fine tuned, and why we have moral duties and obligations. Finally, this argument is completely circular. The truth of naturalism is presumed in the premise itself thus making it a circular argument.

CONCLUSION

As the framework states we ought to pick the explanation that is most parsimonious and can best explain the foundations. My opponent completely drops morality and leaves the vast majority of the other premises untouched. Therefore, a vote for pro is warrranted.

I would like to once again thank my opponent for his reply.

DEFENSE

I. Framework

My opponent finally decided to put forward a framework. It's pretty much the exact same framework as mine. The side that should be preferred is the one that best explains the data and can provide the most coherent account across all domains. This is honestly the issue that is hurting him the most in this debate: My opponent never explained how naturalism explains these domains

II. KCA

Reminder of what the KCA states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

1) Exactly. Failing to respond to a premise is the equivalent of a drop.

2) Yes, not attacking or addressing a premise is 100% a drop. You cannot attack the conclusion without attacking the premises. In a logical syllogism if both premises are true then the conclusion logically follows.

A, B, & C) My opponent effectively just reasserts that we cannot prove that the cause is God. First it should be noted that the KCA is part of a cumulative case for Theism. Once we understand that the universe must have a cause we then must ask ourselves: What could possibly be the cause of the universe? Theism posits that the cause is in a necessary being that transcends spacetime and has the qualities of being powerful enough to create a universe. This being is pretty darn close to the definition of God which helps in our cumulative case. Finally, my opponent provided no alternative explanation to what caused the universe to come into existence.

III. Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation.
2. The universe has an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being. - Drops
3. The universe exists - Drops
4. Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3) - Drops
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2,4) - drops
6. Therefore, God (a necessary being) exists.

A) My opponent misunderstands my strategy as well. Anything that is unaddressed in a debate is a drop. By pointing out that these premises are not responded to they are considered drops and should be extended. My opponent's attack on the PSR is fundamentally weak.

B) My opponent again misunderstands the types of entities in philosophy. To reiterate:

1. Necessary: A being that cannot fail to exist
2. Contingent: A being that can fail to exist (ie the universe)
3. Impossible: A being that is impossible to exist (ie a square circle or a married bachelor)

So yes, stating that God is necessary is 100% philosophical justified.

C) Calling the universe a brute fact or a brute contingency is both philosophically and scientifically expensive. First, it begs the question: Why do some contingent things require a cause and other things do not and where does this terminate? Second, since the universe began to exist it is not a brute fact or a brute contingency. A universe popping into existence out of nothing is literally worse than magic.

IV. Fine Tuning

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, it's due to design

My opponent repeatedly asserts that the first premise is a false trilemma and thus is invalid. However, they have yet to provide a 4th possibility which shows a 4th possibility does not exist. To reiterate the definitions:

1. Law: The universe could not be any other way than it is today
2. Chance: The fundamental constants are a lucky combination
3. Design: It was deliberately made by an intelligent designer.

Every single natural explanation, including brute fact collapses back into either law or chance.

My opponent also failed to refute the fact that the universe is fined tuned so please extend those arguments as well.

V. Moral Argument

I'm shocked my opponent claims the moral argument is irrelevant. In both the debate description and in my debate framework I explicitly define best explanation as: the most parsimonious account for the data across the domains of science, philosophy, ethics, logic etc. Ethics is literally right in the framework and 100% relevant to the discussion. If moral duties exist then naturalism will need to give an account of why they exist, where they come from and why humans are bound to follow these rules.

Finally, my opponent completely ignores what I said about why God is necessary for objective moral facts: If moral realism is true, that means there is a mind-independent source of morality that transcends humanity and is morally perfect. This source also must be rational as moral judgements require the ability to think. The moral source also must be powerful and authoritative that can compel humanity to act in a certain manner. None of this is addressed. Please extend those arguments.

REBUTTALS

To review my opponent's argument:

Premise 1: Everything in the universe operates according to natural laws and processes.

Premise 2: Natural laws and processes are sufficient to explain observed phenomena without assuming supernatural beings.

Premise 3: Supernatural explanations, such as God, are unnecessary if natural explanations are possible.

Conclusion: Hence, naturalism offers a simpler, more trustworthy, and scientifically grounded approach to understanding the world than theism.

What I failed to point out in the last round is that this argument is not deductively valid. Even if all 3 premises are true the conclusion does not logically follow because God can still exist while the universe operates completely under natural laws. Thus even if we don't need God to explain things like thunder and lightning that does not prove He does not exist.

In addition my opponent continues to mistake methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. These two things are completely distinct from one another. Methodological naturalism is the type of naturalism that posits everything can be explained by natural processes while metaphysical naturalism claims that the natural world is all that exists. These two claims are very different.

If one wants to claim the natural world is all that exists they must:

1. Provide an explanation for why contingent things exist
2. Provide an explanation for how the universe came into being from nothing
3. Provide an account for why the universe appears fine tuned for life and
4. Provide an explanation for ethics

My opponent failed to provide an account for any of those 4 things which are clearly required under our frameworks. If metaphysical naturalism cannot provide a coherent account for the origin of the universe from nothing then we are right to reject metaphysical naturalism.

1) Yes, I understand metaphysical naturalism does not require a multiverse. I was bringing that up because it is a common rescue device to explain fine tuning and why we exist at all.

2) Exactly. Methodological naturalism is scientific while metaphysical naturalism is a metaphysical framework. There is a significant difference between the two!

3) Also rather irrelevant and again mistaking the two forms of naturalism.

4) Premise 2 can still be true if theism is true. That's the primary reason why your deductive argument is invalid. In order to make if valid you need additional premises to leap from methodological to metaphysical naturalism.

CONCLUSION

Under our frameworks both our starting points needs to account for:

1. Why there is anything at all
2. Why the universe appears fine tuned for life and
3. Why there are moral facts that transcends humans

Theism does this far better than metaphysical naturalism because it coherently explains everything in one necessary being. My opponent continues to fail to provide an adequate account for those facts. This is not an argument from ignorance or a god of the gaps fallacy because it is based on what we do know and not based on what we do not know. We know that things don't pop into and out of existence for no reason and we know that the fine tuning of the universe is very improbable by chance and not necessary and thus we are logically able to conclude it is due to design. Finally, a necessary morally perfect being better explains why we have moral duties than naturalism alone.

With that a vote for pro is warranted.

Once again I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. As this is the final round I will not be introducing any more rebuttals or arguments. Instead I will just give a very brief closing remark and provide judges with the score card for this debate.

1. Framework

Both of us agreed on the basic framework. This debate ought to be judged by this question: Which side provides the most parsimonious account for the data across the domains of science, philosophy, ethics, logic etc? Both naturalism and theism makes specific claims about these domains. The most coherent foundation should win. With that, let's summarize.

Question 1: Why is there something rather than nothing?

The first foundational question that must be asked is why does anything exist at all? Theism answers this question by stating that the universe was not created from nothing and is not a brute fact but was created by an intelligent being that is necessary and exists outside of spacetime. To prove this point I provided two basic arguments: The KCA and the PSR

The KCA

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause - Dropped
2. The universe began to exist - Dropped
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

My opponent continuously dropped both premises and only attempted to attack the conclusion. The problem I repeatedly raised was you cannot attack a logical syllogism by only challenging the conclusion. If both premises are true and the syllogism is logically valid then the conclusion is unavoidable. My opponent repeatedly dropped both premises.

The PSR

The PSR states that everything has a reason for why it exists. My opponent repeatedly tries to deny this point but kept running into the same question-begging problem: Why does almost everything else require an explanation for why it exists but not the universe? Where is that line terminated? This question was never fully addressed.

Question 1 is clearly won by PRO. My opponent has not provided a single natural explanation for why something exists at all.

Question 2: Why does the universe appear fine tuned for life?

The second fundamental question: Now that the universe exists why does it permit life to come about? A universe is more likely to have no life than to have life. For a universe to permit life it must have very specific fundamental constants and changing these could render the universe unstable or unfit for life.

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, it's due to design

Throughout this debate my opponent repeatedly challenged this as a false trilemma but never proved it to be a false trilemma. Given the fact that my opponent cannot come up with a 4th explanation should be seen as evidence that this is in fact a true trilemma. Clearly this point is won by PRO as my opponent failed to provide a naturalistic explanation for why the universe appears fine tuned for life

Question 3: Why are there mind-independent moral facts

The framework in this debate clearly mentioned ethics as one of those things that must be explained. My opponent for several rounds tried ignoring this argument and claimed it was not relevant to the framework. Only later did he actually try and challenge it but his very challenge was already answered in the main argument. This point is also clearly won by pro as my opponent has not provided a natural foundation for ethics.

Conclusion

In conclusion my opponent failed to meet their BOP and as such I urge a vote for PRO.