God Probably Exists

Housekeeping Pro drops the majority of my arguments against fine tuning, drops my underview, and drops the background knowledge and Occam’s razor contentions under abductive reasoning. Therefore, voters must presume Con. C1) The universe never began to exist Pro accuses my argument of not linking to the resolution, and only to the cosmological argument. He just *drops* my justification of the first premise. The argument links because, for the universe to be ‘created’, it would have to have begun. If the universe simply existed without starting, then it can’t have been created [1]. As such, the argument links and the first premise is justified. Kasmic argues my second premise is entirely semantic in nature, and doesn’t prove the universe didn’t begin. I shall go ahead and concede the universe is past finite, and shall establish a difference between ‘beginning’ and past-finite. Now, ‘past-finite’ merely means time began at some point. But, as I argue, time is merely an *attribute* of the universe. The universe existed forever, and time began within the universe at some point. Since time is an illusion, the arrow of time could have begun at any point, and this doesn’t affect the universe’s beginning under eternalism. The scientific consensus is merely that the universe is past-finite, not that it began. For the universe to have ‘begun’, a classical interpretation of spacetime is required, which is dubious in light of quantum gravity [2]. The big bang wouldn’t be an ontological beginning. It would be like inch one on a ruler that has existed forever. Under eternalism, time is just another dimension, and future events are ‘already there’. This implies that the universe had no definite beginning, as Pro asserts. The cosmological evidence is not for a definite beginning, simply because the ability to do cosmology is predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature. Only Lorentz Ether Theory is compatible with eternalism, and it rejects this principle. An actual infinite is not metaphysically impossible. I argue that Pro’s quoting of David Hilbert is an appeal to authority, simply because actual infinites have been documented, e.g. in the case of gravitational singularities [3]. Michael Martin critiques Hilbert’s position, and argues that “a priori arguments [such as Hilbert’s arguments] are unsound and show, at most, that actual infinities have odd properties. This latter fact is well known, however, and shows nothing about whether it is logically impossible to have actual infinities in the real world” [4]. Once more, I’m not arguing the universe is past eternal--it’s a finite ruler that has a first inch, but has existed forever. Therefore, the argument isn’t semantical. C2) Abductive reasoning First, Pro *drops* Occam’s razor, and argues directly from explanatory power. Silence is compliance, therefore extend my argument. I’m not setting up any dichotomy. I’m arguing between two explanations--theism and naturalism. If natural laws can explain everything *without* theism, then naturalism entails as a priori most likely. And they can. As I argued against fine tuning, the constants are related to natural laws--Pro just *drops* my objections to the fine tuning contention as well, merely arguing against the possibility of chance, and dropping physical necessity, so fine tuning is won by me by default. I’m not strawmanning anything. God doesn’t explain anything that science can’t. If naturalism can explain everything, we reject theism from Occam’s razor, so I haven’t straw manned theism at all. C3) Causality is necessarily true Pro argues that this argument doesn’t link. Let me explain why this argument links. God is defined with two attributes relevant to this argument--necessary existence and creation of the universe. If God is necessary, then *every* aspect of God has to be necessary, otherwise God wouldn’t be necessary. If God doesn’t have necessary existence, I have refuted one attribute, therefore God as defined does not exist. From Becker’s postulate, “If God necessarily doesn’t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist” [5]. Now, the universe needn’t have been created, i.e. the universe was not created in all possible worlds. Therefore, a creator of the universe is not necessary, therefore doesn’t have necessary existence. Consider this premise: ~[]G --> []~G From this, we can conclude that, necessarily, God does not exist, and the argument links entirely. Pro *drops* this argument, and, as mentioned, silence is compliance. Crystallization C1: The Universe Never Began a) If the universe never began, God does not exist - Premise is true because absolute ontological beginning is required for the universe to be ‘created’ b) The universe never began - Under eternalism, the universe is past-finite, but has no absolute ontological beginning - The argument is not semantical because time is not a criteria for ‘beginning’, as time is merely an attribute of the universe - Actual infinities are metaphysically possible (c.f. gravitational singularities), and a priori arguments against their metaphysical possibility fail - Cosmological evidence only demonstrates universe as past finite, since Lorentz Ether Theory is incompatible with cosmology C: The universe never began C2: Abductive Reasoning a) Occam’s razor--theism is more complex than atheism, thus should be rejected - Argument is *dropped* by Pro b) Explanatory power - Natural capacity explains everything - The majority of my objections to the fine tuning argument are dropped, except for chance c) Background knowledge - Argument is *dropped* by Pro C: God likely did not exist C3: Causality is not necessary Argument entirely dropped by Pro, and I have demonstrated: ~[]G --> []~G. Arguments do not secure this, and KCA preempted by C1, so presume Con. Therefore, please vote Con. 1. William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, p 184. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://fqxi.org... 4. Michael Martin. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p 104. 5. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...