God exists

My opponents source reads the following: Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, The galaxy NGC 4258, The giant elliptical galaxy M87, And several others. Scientists verified the existence of the black holes by studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, The object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system. This actually supports my point. All of this evidence is the impact of black holes. The speed of clouds, Motion of material. All observations. I honestly don't understand why you're still arguing with me over the unmoved mover. You believe in it too. The mathematics are clear. The universe is finite and as such must have an unmoved mover. The atheist may argue that the unmoved mover is the sort of universe generator that multiverse theory posits or a quantum singularity but all of these have deep flaws in their argumentation. So an atemporal, Aphysical, Infinite "something" is necessary for the universe to exist. I then argue that this "something" must be intelligent in order for such unprecedented preciscion to be achieved. Also, Your "probability is bad" argument was dead from the beginning. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science. You can call it an "argument from ignorance" (it's not. ) all you want. I'm not claiming that since there's not evidence that a squared circle doesn't exist therefore a squared circle exists which would be an argument from ignorance, I'm saying that you cannot SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that a squared circle doesn't exist. It may not be possible in the third dimension but then many shapes that we can mathematically show to exist don't exist in the third dimension. It's also important to note that circles are not scientific but mathematical constructs. I do actually know your position in this debate. You are the con in a "god exists" debate. Therefore, You believe god does not exist. I will now answer both of your questions. "has god always existed" yes, If the unmoved mover isn't primordial then the universe breaks (a point you still haven't answered. ) "did God create itself? " No, The unmoved mover was never created and is primordial. If this isn't true, The universe breaks because of thermodynamic equilibrium. The mathematics on this are clear; time, Space, And matter are temporally finite. They had a beginning and thus so did the universe which is made up of these things. This is a quote from a lecture given by Stephen Hawking on the topic "In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, And whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, That the universe has not existed forever, But that it had a beginning, About 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. " your argument against the unmoved mover is dead. It has to exist or everything breaks. None of my arguments are unfalsifiable. I addressed that point in my last post. A simple dictionary defining of an unfalsifiable argument puts your point to rest. We can observe god's impact in the world through irreducible complexity, The information content of biology, And the mere existence of the universe. I pointed out that Judaic and Christian thought both agree that both of these groups are worshiping the same god, Therefore that leaves only the Judeo-Christian god and the Islamic god. Thus 50/50 odds. Also, It isn't only these three groups because of ad populum, But because they are the only ones with a real concept of hell. The point of Pascal's wager is to avoid hell. Therefore, It is wisest to choose from these three. Or two really. My source for the 1010^123 number is Dr. Roger Penrose. A famous mathematician and colleague of Stephen Hawking. You have also misunderstood my point on objective morality. Objective morality does exist, And must for subjective moral thought to come about. I would argue that morality is not subjective but even if it is, That requires an objective reference point and thus, Objective moral law. You got it backwards. Objective morality then subjective morality (if subjective morality exists which I would argue it doesn't. ) Anything that is objective is just like mathematics. Slavery is wrong 100% of the time. Anyone who thinks slavery is good is wrong. There are moral neutrals, But even that is a part of objectivity. Merely not having enough evidence to convict a serial killer does not change the fact that serial killing is objectively bad. If the serial killer believes that serial killing is acceptable then that person is wrong. No matter how ardently they claim it is. My opponent claims that not committing genocide and not enslaving people isn't objective immoral but are a shared set of principles. Right. Objective moral principles. If gassing jews is always wrong as a matter of principle, Then objective morality exists. If objective morality doesn't exist, Then when it comes down to it, It's just a matter of opinion and there's nothing really wrong with gassing jews. But there is. My opponent attempts to refute my Ockhams razor point by making another "probability bad" argument but I've already refuted that utterly. This is just how science works and you'll have to learn to accept it. He then proceeds to claim that I haven't accounted for any unknown information. This IS an argument from ignorance. "we don't know that there isn't a theory out there that can explain away all of these points I can't refute, So i'm going to say that there is. " Again, My pointing out the fundamental logical truth that matter can't exist before it's created, And that rejecting the unmoved mover (for some reason) breaks the universe Is not an argument from ignorance. The unmoved mover is not "the best explanation I can think of" it's the ONLY explanation that doesn't break the universe. Which is why there's entire fields of science that focus on finding the unmoved mover. With no success because they refuse to consider god as an option. God is not bound by the laws of matter. No. I've been rather clear on this. He can't be, Because he's not matter. He can't be made of matter because the unmoved mover brought matter into existence, And matter can't exist before it's created. Physicists agree that the first cause must be atemporal, Incorporeal, And cannot occupy space in the conventional sense. Because none of these things existed before the unmoved mover brought them into existence. I've been citing the 1010^123 number throughout the discussion. It comes from Dr. Roger Penrose. "You don't understand you argument is of ignorance. " No, You don't understand what an argument from ignorance is. When I say: "look at all of this evidence for god, It seems that god must exist for the universe to function at all! " that isn't an argument from ignorance, An argument from ignorance would be: " There's no evidence that god doesn't exist, Therefore god exists. " "we have yet the information to give an informed decision on anything related to the start of the Universe. " That's just not true. A simple google search will lead you to find that we know that the unmoved mover exists in order to prevent the universe from breaking. Take the lecture from Stephen Hawking I cited for example. So yes, Your claim that the unmoved mover doesn't exist breaks the universe. This is indisputable. Again, The purpose of Pascal's wager is to avoid hell. The only religions I know of that have a concept of hell that people go to for not believing in the god of that religion are the three Abrahamic religions. Two of those can be consolidated to one god leaving you with 50/50 odds. Compare that to one trillion trillion trillion times beneath a statistical impossibility and the choice is clear. Even if I grant you that all religions function under Pascal's wager, I STILL have near infinitely greater odds than you. "Pro has made a strawman of my position. " No. You asked for a single scientific paper wherein Fred Hoyle comes to the conclusion I cited. That doesn't exist. It was a position developed over a lifetime of study. Therefore, If you want to know exactly how he came to that conclusion then you would need every paper he ever wrote in that lifetime of study. In the meantime, Here's a source for the quote itself. Http://www. Philosophicalsociety. Com/an_astronomer's_take_on_god. Html "A branch of biology does not mean he studied the core of biology. " There's really no such thing as "Biology" at the graduate level. You pick a specialization in the field of biology IE zoology, Entomology, Marine biology, And indeed, Oceanography which is a branch of geophysics. And finally, God's impact as I stated previously is seen in the information content of biology IE the language of DNA, The mere existence of the universe, And irreducible complexity.