God Exists

Being equally honest, I was glad that Pro’s round was short. Reading and writing 10k rounds 4 rounds in a row is tiresome. I will use this round t summarise arguments, why I think I won, and any last rebuttals. I would like to start by analysing Pro’s case. Pro’s CaseProbability ArgumentPro argues there is no concrete evidence beyond conjecture that there are an infinite number of universes, however that runs into plenty of problems:1. It’s an alternative hypothesis to the one of “God exists”. I can just as easily state there is “no concrete evidence that God exists” and be done with it Why should we accept the conclusion “God exists” over the negation of the premise “there exists only one “attempt”, or universe. ?2. We actually have at least one example of a universe with independent laws and physical constants, this one! Therefore, universes are proven to be possible to exist, God has not even been proven a possibility, let alone a probability.3. What would evidence of multiple univeerses even look like? Should we expect to see any? I ask this because Pro’s argument depends on independent laws of physics, universal constants, etc. So according to Pro’s argument, it must be possible for these to vary. If it’s possible for these to vary then I see no reason why it should have happened only once, with plenty ofvariation. Infinite possibility leaves room for infinite chances. Pro doesn’t address my main rebuttal here that Pro is favouring the outcome that “life exists” without precident, this his probability arguments are meaningless. Information ContentThese arguments are dropped by Pro. A. Reducible ComplexityB. Same parts, new functionC. Irreducible complexity arising via. later adaptation. All largely dropped by pro except:“Natural selection and reusing parts in no way counters my argument. If I designed a machine that could serve multiple functions I would utilize that machine where it can be applied rather than making a new type of machine. ”Pro’s argument was that the information that exists within the DNA cannot occur via. natural processes, therefore an intelligence must have done it. I provided a counter-mechanism that occurs naturally all the time. Pro’s point here is a misunderstanding of my argument. If there is a mechanism by which “information” is produced naturally, then Pro no longer has an argument that intelligence is needed. Even if I stopped here, it is clear that Pro has badly failed to meet his burden of proof here. Con’s CaseThe Universe Lacks A Cause or Creator“If the universe is finite it is not only logical to ask what came before but necessary to understand it's origins. what caused this first moment in time? ”I argued that it is incoherent to argue that it has a cause. Since you have reached the boundary of time itself, there is no “before” to speak of. Thus it is incoherent to speak of causes. “asking what is North of the North Pole is not the same as this. I can tell you what is North of the North Pole. Nothing. ”Actually the question itself is incoherent, rather than there existing an answer, since North is defined by the position of the North pole, the question itself entails a contradiction nd thus is incoherent. Pro assumes that our everyday notions of causation can be extended without modification to the universe itself, which itself contains everything we need to speak the language of causality – an arrow of time and space-time itself. I argued that the universe would just exist as-is, without extra baggage of a timeless creator who itself would exist as-is. Pro has not responded to my other points that if Pro attempts to reconcile simlteneuity by that Lorentzian physics, then it would violate the assumptions of general relativity – there being a universal law of physics and universal speed of light. Both are already shown to be correct. Thus all of Pro’s rebuttals arguing for a privilages reference frame all miss the mark. “My opponents next argument goes back to perception of time. if I began to accelerate at the speed of light and time dilation began, and I do this until it's the year 2025, if I do this I may only age 2 years (This number is just for example purposes and is likely not the actual number) but it would still be the year 2025 I would not be time traveling to the year 2020. time is still objective and presentism is upheld”The time on Earth would be 2025. The time for me would be 2020. Pro assumes that the Earth’s time is “correct” without justification. Remember, the person literally aged 5 years in that spaceship, and his clock would have passed 5 years. It’s a pretty blatant demonstration that there is no objective passage of time. Universe Does Not Require GodPro has dropped my arguments here. Keeping this round short. Thanks for the debate.