God is real

Even the most complicated theoretical arguments of physics have been expressed in plain English. But no one, not Langan, not Pro, not critics, not other advocates of CMTU have ever been able to do that. That's what makes it mumbo jumbo. Error: Delusions to the contrary notwithstanding, the CTMU is presented clearly and in plain English. Since Pro did not backup his claim with any evidence, there's not much I can say beyond that. Let's consider part of Pro's explanation. I have underlined words and phrases that have no dictionary meanings. Pro says,"Simply stated, telic recursion says that reality, being totally self-contained, must be self-determinative and self-configuring. Moreover, whereas ordinary time accommodates changes occurring within the spacetime manifold, this is obviously not so for the kind of time in which the manifold itself changes." Error: Telic recursion and self-determination were both explicitly defined within the debate (anyone who doubts this need merely read the debate). And a simple wikipedia search of "spacetime manifold" yields the definition: amanifold consisting of "events" which are described by some type of coordinate system. If all telic recursion says is that there is nothing outside of reality, that says nothing about whether a god exists or not. If not god exists, then gods are with unicorns and successful socialism in the world of imagination. Error: No, that's the premise on which telic recursion is based. From the self-containment principle, Telic recursion deduces that reality is self-determinative and self-configuring (and thus intelligent). Later on “cosmic time” is used as if it is different from ordinary time, but it is never defined. Error: I defined time as change [of state], and clearly set cosmic time apart from ordinary time in restricting it to only those changes occurring at levels higher (i.e., more general) than those occurring within the spacetime manifold. But there is no proof of the assumption that "out of nothing comes nothing." it is an argument from incredulity. Error: My opponent has my position backwards. I am claiming precisely the opposite - that out of nothing "comes" a self-contained system. Since any argument to the contrary invokes constraint, it is a priori false. Way before Langan, Hawking introduced a theory with some similarities, although Hawking was more careful to define terms. I'm straining to try to make a connection between CMTU and conventional cosmology, which may not be possible, but I'll try. Error: Maybe that's why Langan calls his theory "a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology." Pro must prove not only that some god exists, but that the particular god that exists is omnibenevolent. Error: We defined God to be omnibenevolent, so proving that the God which exists is omnibenevolent would be redundant. I already outlined the reasons why God is omnibenevolent. But there is no proof of the assumption that "out of nothing comes nothing." it is an argument from incredulity. Quantum theory argues against the assumption, showing that equal amounts of positive and negative energy can appear spontaneously. Error: This would amount to acausality, which means what it has always meant: magic."Explaining" the universe in this way would yield the following conclusion: the universe is inexplicable. But this, of course, is both absurd and unscientific, and could be applied to literally anything, thus removing it from the realm of rational discourse. If “benevolence” is taken in the human sense, then the CMTU god is clearly disproved. He must know, per omniscience, that he is causing humans substantial pain, and that revealing it is an experiment would be a substantial relief. An O3 God of any type would avoid unnecessary pain. Error: Once again, God is not bound by time. His omniscience is retroactively defined, meaning that such statements as "In this moment, God does not know, so he is not omniscient" are senseless - the "present moment" does not apply to God, since time would necessarily be contained within Him. This can be a very difficult concept to grasp. In the context of evil, it means that God "reverses time" (retroactively self-configures) such that any evils never existed except as a possibility i.e. a possible future. Any claim to the contrary implies that God is not omnipotent. Thus, the fact that evils exist in the world is not evidence against God, since it is compatible with both the existence and non-existence of God. I do not see a trace of a link between the CMTU theory and benevolence. Error: As a condition of existence, reality must make and recognize its own choice to exist. Thus, reality seeks to maximize its own self-defined utility in light of the inherent freedom of the universe. This is what constitutes objective morality (and thus what constitutes omnibenevolence) since "good" is defined as "that which should be kept", and value scales internal to reality (like the laws of motion) are objective, since objective just means real. Since there is nothing to "prod" reality in any specific direction, so to speak, "should" is necessarily implied. If so, then CMTU might be scientifically provable someday if a someday a test is found. String theory is in that awkward state of proponents claiming that a test will be found. Fine, but it cannot be proved until then, and Pro's debate obligation is provide a proof immediately. Error: The CTMU will never be scientifically provable (however, it is empirically confirmed by such phenomena as the accelerating expansion of the cosmos, wave and particle properties of matter, and quantum mechanics). The theory is a supertautlogical extension of logic, which means it proves itself. If you are interested in how it does this, I made a thread on the topic which explains it: http://www.debate.org... Pro argues that there might be a logical proof rather than a scientific proof. But logical proofs only work upon assumptions. They are of the form, "If A has some property and B has some property, then by logic C has some property." CMTU starts with a good definition that reality is the set of all things that exist. But it does not follow that God must exist to organize reality or to do anything else. We know some things exist and that natural laws exist, but claiming that there is nothing but reality implies that if anything is created it is natural laws. Hawking shows there is no need for any god. Pro has not met the burden of proof. Error: As do empirical proofs. Empiricism rests on the assumption that nature is uniform, which it then seeks to confirm (and is thus circular, and can "prove" nothing beyond the bare data). The CTMU only rests upon the "assumption" that A is A, from which all of its conclusions are deduced.