May Regular Tournament: God Exists

Thanks, Tejretics.I was never a fan of this format, but I guess I'll try and not scroll too far down to see what you said in regards to my arguments.Regarding definitions, I see we've come to a mix-up regarding "Universe" and "totality of existence." I think it's fair if we stick to the original definition of the term "Universe" (13.8 billion years old, caused most likely by the Big Bang), and everything before or outside of the visible Universe shall be called "infinite" or "totality of existence." Considering most scientists (and people in general) refer to the Universe as everything inside the 13.8 billion year time period, I don't think it would make much sense in this debate to refer to everything outside of the Universe (energy, and whatever else...) as the same thing. I hope this is acceptable, as it's pretty much mandatory. There's the Universe - 13.8 billion years old - then there's infinite/totality of existence - everything before and outside of the Universe.KalalalalabamRight off the bat I went to point out who you're citing - William Lane Craig studied at Evangelical Universities, and his degrees are primarily in religious fields [1] - if you check out his Wikipedia [2], you see his "main interests" are Philosophy of Religion, Natural Theology, and Christian Apologetics. However he does have an interest in The Philosophy of Time (Eternalism [3]), this doesn't quite hold as much merit to any non-theoretical argument he presents. Although I still will dispute his/your arguments, I at least want you (and the people reading this) to understand that the main person trying to explain how Creation by God (which is unproven) is more possible than natural creation is someone who has primarily done research in a religious field. The people simply trying to find the origins of the Universe back their theories up with facts, and all have PhD's in science fields, physics in general, materials science, mathematics, astronomy, etc.Saying "God created the Universe,* here's a theory taken from the Bible - an unreliable source - to support that," is a lot different than saying "The Universe was created by quantum fluctuations, here's mathematical proof that quantum fluctuations exist [4], as well as evidence that supports the idea that quantum fluctuations created the Universe, with evidence that supports the idea that beyond our observable Universe is simply infinity" (which is the fact that energy is infinite, tied with quantum fluctuations possibly creating a Universe).*Side note - remember a time when God created just the heavens and the Earth? And when astronomers discovered other solar systems and galaxies and that there was more to be found than just Earth, all of a sudden God created the Universe? And we discover the Universe is billions of years old, and all of a sudden "well, one year doesn't necessarily mean one year today" or "the Lord works in mysterious ways." Or what about fossils? "God put those there to test our faith." And so on... my point is that when science and technology advances and discovers new things, all of a sudden "well yeah God did that too," or if they don't understand, "the Lord works in mysterious ways." Just like my previous examples of the thousands of different Gods basically dismissed because we discovered the reasons those natural phenomena occur, therefore no more God. Same with the most current and popular God - once we can actually prove (with scientifically testable evidence that pleases everybody) that the Universe was not created by God, and that there is no afterlife, I can guarantee the number of believers would drop. When there is no need for a God, there is no God.Sorry about all that, now that we can see the difference between reliable theories backed with evidence and unreliable theories backed with faith, let's get back to what Mr. Craig has said.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause - True2. The universe begins to exist - The observable universe (13.8 billion years old), sure, let's just go with that. The Universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the Universe (13.8 billion years old) has a cause. - Sure, I'll run with that.However, let's bring up your third point. Mr. Craig talks about the "Universe" in the "correct" sense, however he talks about the Universe as if there is nothing outside of the Universe. With science progressing more and more, like I've been saying, it is reasonable to believe that there is at the very least infinite energy outside of our observable Universe. Infinity does not have a beginning, nor an end. Nothing was the cause of infinity, therefore, saying "God created everything" is simply false. If we reword your own three points to accurately depict what science has discovered, backed with evidence, it would go something like this -1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2. Infinity never began to exist.3. Therefore, infinity has no cause.Nothing created infinity. Crazy thing to wrap your head around, but it's infinity. It is forever. Quantum fluctuations, as I've shown before, are mathematically possible to create a Universe.No God to create infinity. Quantum fluctuations to create the Universe.Ontology, necessarily, possibility etc.Okay... I was in a debate about the existence of God on this site before, and when my opponent brought this up, he hardly explained it and I pretty much had no idea what he was going on about. However you've explained it quite well, and I thank you for that.The problem with this argument is that not a lot of people understood the human brain very well in the 18th Century. Please keep in mind that science advances; religion/faith does not. Ideas come into people's minds without them ever being exposed to things that create that idea. Instead, we gather information from multiple sources to form an idea. I have never in my life seen a triangle-shaped green and blue and yellow and silver striped pickup truck with red tires, however I can imagine it and describe it in great detail to you. Does that mean I saw a triangle-shaped green and blue and yellow and silver striped pickup truck with red tires? No, it means I know what a pickup truck looks like, I know what a triangle looks like, and I know what those colours are, and I used all that information to create a new idea.You're asserting that you have to see specific things exactly as you describe them from your imagination (or memory, according to you) in order to imagine them in the first place. Well... that isn't the case at all. How do you think the first of anything was created? The first telephone? Before that, telephones didn't exist, so nobody was able to create one from one they saw earlier. They took information they had gathered from multiple sources to describe and create it.Let's very quickly tear apart the Ontological argument.P1. If an idea is within cognition, it is either false or necessarily true. - I'm assuming we're talking about assertions of facts, for example "God exists." Then okay, you're on the right page.P2. The idea of God is within cognition. - True.P3. An idea of cognition is false if and only if it is imaginative. - True.P4. God cannot be imagined. - Oh, but he can, and I'll explain how after.C. God's existence is modally necessary. - No.Going back to P4 - I can very easily dismantle this argument by showing that everything stated in the Bible was observable. The people who wrote about what God did and what God is were able to see everything they wrote about in person. The clouds, being Heaven. The stars, being galaxies (but referred to as stars). The land and water and sun and moon they claimed God created. Everything spoken about in the Bible was observable, and simply throwing "God created all that" in there doesn't say anything about God himself.But what about God himself, you may ask? Doesn't Revelations say quite a bit about God's appearance? Well, it does and it's kind of a let down - he looks like an old guy. In a robe. Something plenty of people have seen.If you can present a Bible verse that mentions something that no human was able to see, such as the Andromeda Galaxy and it's trajectory toward the Milky Way, considering God did create all that, then you would have a case. Or if you could present something on Earth that was undiscovered until recently (although not nearly as credible as something outside of Earth) then maybe you'd have a case. But the Bible depicts God as an old man with white hair, in a robe... Genesis, the very beginning, even says "God created man in his own image" ...so basically, God looks human. That isn't "imagining" something, that's looking at another human and saying God look like him. Here's a link [5] that describes how ideas are formed, and they aren't exact recreations, like you're claiming, of past events.So in a nutshell, an idea is nothing more or less than a new combination of old elements. You're on the right track, but your idea claims that an idea is simply an exact recreation of something you've already seen or witnessed, which just isn't the case.Okay, so... The Universe most likely had a beginning, but that beginning was most likely quantum fluctuations. The totality of existence did not have a beginning, as it is infinite, so it does not have a cause, and therefore was not the product of God. The human brain works with multiple forms of current knowledge to create a blend of all these things, and does not simply recreate exact past events, and does not require actual physical awareness of something for someone to describe that thing, but simply awareness of everything that makes up that thing.Thanks, Tejretics, back to you.Sources:[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://arxiv.org... [5] https://blog.bufferapp.com...