God Probably Exists

Pro and I have agreed to waive Rule 2--sources can be outside the text of the debate. R1) Cosmological argument a) The first premise basically states the Law of Causality, the idea that nothing comes from nothing, thus everything has to have a cause of its existence. I argue that Pro fails to adequately justify this premise. The sole justification for a caused universe is that the causal principle applies within the universe. This commits the fallacy of composition, since properties of the parts of a whole don’t make up the properties of the whole itself--for example, a property shared by H2 and O2 is that they are gases at room temperature, but 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O, and 2H2O is not a gas at room temperature [1]. Similarly, asserting the universe is necessarily caused is a hasty generalization, since there is only a set example of caused objects, and don’t know if objects that we do not know of require a cause [2]. Finally, Pro says that the premise is “rationally intuitive”, committing an appeal to intuition fallacy [3]. The universe did not require a cause. For the term ‘cause’ to be coherent, it assumes time directionality. As Sean Carroll notes, the directionality of time is a major requirement for causality [4], since time is required for any event to coherently ‘happen’. Outside the universe, there is no time directionality, thus causality is impossible. b) The majority of the second premise is addressed under my C1. The universe’s beginning is only possible under a presentism ontology of time [5]. Under eternalism, the universe couldn’t have ‘begun’ at tensed time t, since it is a tenseless ontology. Experiments from quantum mechanics vindicate eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time, where quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past [6]. An experimenter can choose to entangle photons even when they don’t exist in the present anymore. Other experiments also show time is an emergent phenomenon, ‘emerging’ from entanglement [7]. Furthermore, time travel would be metaphysically impossible if the universe began--but we have observed time dilation [8]. c) Pro’s justification that the cause has to be God is that a ‘mind’ is the only substance that is timeless and spaceless, but can cause real events to occur. I argue that minds are contingent on time. While we don’t have a quantitative understanding of minds, it is reasonable to conclude that a mind requires a process. A mind is a faculty which allows a person to think, or process thoughts. Thinking is a process. And all processes are contingent on time, since an arrow of time (determined by entropy) is required for anything to ‘happen’, or a process to take place. Therefore, a mind is not timeless and spaceless. R2) Fine tuning argument The argument hinges on two ideas: (1) the universe’s cosmological constants are such that any minuscule variation in them would result in life not being formed, and (2) physical necessity and chance are not explanations for this. Pro then concludes God’s existence as likely true. First, Pro’s examples of constants being ‘fine tuned’ for life are flawed. Some of the examples presented are the gravitational constant, the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and the cosmological constant. All these constants are not dimensionless, therefore have dimensions and depend on units for their value [9]. All constants of relativity and quantum mechanics are dimensionless, and, therefore, they “are not important [and] are arbitrary human conventions.” [10] The other forces of the universe aren’t finely tuned either. For instance, electromagnetic force and nuclear force can compensate for each other [11]. As seen above, this can result in fairly large levels of variations, thus these constants are not ‘fine tuned’. Constants can be changed to compensate for other constants, so they are not tightly fixed to these arbitrary values. Second, some of these constants are with their values outside of physical necessity. Pro’s challenge of physical necessity confuses modal necessity with physical necessity. Many constants could not have different values. The ratio of particles to others is a result of charge conservation [12-13]. Finally, Pro rejects chance on unsound notions. The improbability is only if there are two universes fine tuned for life. Consider Theodore Drange’s reductio ad absurdum--if I toss a pack of 52 cards sideways, I would get a horizontal arrangement of cards. The probability of me getting that precise order is 1:10^64, but me getting that order isn’t improbable by chance. R3) Moral argument Premise one is a bare assertion. Craig (Pro’s source) only justifies premise two in that quote. I see no reason why objective moral values can’t exist sans God, e.g. in the genes, or as an evolutionary trait. Secondly, the proposition that we all know something is *objectively* wrong ‘deep down’ is also a bare assertion. Till these premises are justified, you can presume Con. == Underview == I have soundly refuted all three arguments Pro presents in favor of God’s existence. Therefore, Pro has failed to fulfill their burden of proof, so voters can presume Con. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.nizkor.org... 3. http://www.seekfind.net... 4. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 5. William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, p 184. 6. http://www.livescience.com... 7. https://medium.com... 8. http://www.phy.olemiss.edu... 9. http://math.ucr.edu... 10. Ibid. 11. Victor J. Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, p 248. 12. https://en.wikipedia.org... 13. http://physics.bu.edu...