God most likely exists

== Overview == The rebuttals cannot be "in the comments." Debate convention dictates that all arguments must be presented within the debate, or they are invalid. Further, Pro only challenges OV3, which I concede. But OV1, OV2, and OV4 still stand -- not touched upon, even in the comments. The rules and structure are abusive, therefore can be discredited. Further, Pro has dropped *all* my points against their arguments -- under the cosmological argument, Pro merely adds something about the Big Bang, but drops premise 1 and also drops eternalism. Presume Con. Additionally, Pro also drops my offense, that atheism is the default position, and drops that causality is impossible without time. [Sidenote: debate convention dictates that Pro cannot address my arguments with new objections or present any new arguments, rebuttals, or defense in the next round, as it is Pro's final round of argumentation, since Pro has to pass the last round. Therefore, Pro cannot refute my causality or atheism as default position arguments, or expand on his defense to his teleological argument.] (1) Cosmological argument The Big Bang is completely compatible with atheism. I just don't see how the Big Bang links to God. All the Big Bang says is -- 13.8 billion years ago -- the universe was in an extremely high density state. [1] This merely means the universe was very small and dense, *not* that it began or had a cause. Pro also drops eternalism, under which the universe would just exist as a four-dimensional, tenseless block -- it remains logically possible, thus refutes Pro's assertions. Pro's second premise would completely fail under eternalism. As for the first premise, there are multiple ways the universe *could have been* brought into existence. (a) Lack of causation It is possible that *nothing at all* caused the universe. The universe needn't have been caused at all. The Big Bang -- the "singularity" -- created time, space, and matter (from nothing). A singularity is, inherently, something outside of human understanding. A singularity is defined as a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume. [2] This means that a singularity is both an infinite and a point of "nothingness," which means it is beyond human cognition itself. [2] As mentioned under the "time" argument, because the singularity occurred before time and space themselves, "when was it" and "what was before it" are both incoherent questions. A cause must precede its effect, but "preceding" the singularity is incoherent. Further, simultaneous causality fails since simultaneous causality itself has to be constrained by time, since we can comprehend simultaneous causality, but something time-less is something beyond human cognition. Stephen Hawking explains, "Our everyday experience makes us convinced that everything that happens must be caused by something that occurred earlier in time. So it's natural for us to assume that something -- perhaps God -- must have caused the universe to come into existence. But you can't get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. This means there is no possibility of a Creator because there is no time for a Creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything." [3] (b) Quantum fluctuations A quantum fluctuation "is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle." [4] During a quantum fluctuation, a particle and an antiparticle are generated from the quantum vacuum for a short period, and then annihilate. Edward P. Tryon proposed that the universe itself was a vacuum fluctuation. [5] This would be possible under the zero-energy universe hypothesis, which proposes that the net energy in the universe is zero. For these, the concepts of "positive energy" and "negative energy" are used. Positive energy is all scalar energy, while negative energy is vector and attractive. It is possible that the mass of all energy in the universe is zero, as gravitational attractive force "cancels out" all other energy. And this has been confirmed by the flat curvature of the universe. [6] Such a universe could be caused by quantum fluctuations. (2) Teleological argument Pro virtually drops my entire response here. All Pro says is that it is a "weak rebuttal," and fails to adequately substantiate as to *why* it is a "weak rebuttal." Pro's justification is incoherent. Pro says, "If the universe was created by chance what's the chances that God was created? I don't understand this one bit. I'm not asserting that "God was created," so Pro is begging the question, assuming God exists. Further, "to be continued" is not allowed, as Pro can't post *new* objections in the next round. (3) Godelian ontological argument Pro drops all my objections here. Let me extend them in application to the new ontological argument -- being "God-like" is subjective, and the argument merely attempts to define God into existence. It's fallacious, since Pro is generalizing from "God is defined as being positive" to "God exists," without any justification. The argument is simply incoherent, since "positive" and "negative" properties are inherently subjective. The argument is insufficiently warranted (explained) and is incoherent, therefore can be discredited by the judges. "Good" is subjective, so *all* axioms are bare assertions. Pro's axioms and theorems are inherently bare assertions. Further, the argument only seeks to prove that, if "God exists," then God necessarily exists, thus is question begging. Basically, it says, "God would be even better if he exists, and since God has the maximum logically possible good-ness, and his existence is logically possible, God exists," but "better" and "good" are both subjective terms. I could say "God is bad, therefore God exists" as well, and any adjective can be made as such. I can conceive of another being with attributes I consider "good," and say that being exists, but that's incorrect. For the above reasons, Vote Con. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] "Curiosity," Discovery Channel [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] Edward P. Tryon, Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? [6] http://tinyurl.com...