It is likely that a God or gods exist

OV Pro completely drops the supported proposition of mine that something supernatural is impossible unless proven otherwise. The ipse dixit fallacy committed here is best illustrated in this way. Pro claims that being supernatural is part of God’s definition, thus does not need to be supported. To refute this, all I need to do is refute Pro’s own arguments. If God is not necessary, then the laws of nature will apply as then Pro will have to defend every aspect of the definition of God without committing ipse dixit. Dishonesty (1) TinyURL - A TinyURL link merely shortens the URL of a link, thus it does not, in any way, render the source ‘less important’ than the argument. Thus, Pro has yet to show why TinyURL links are inappropriate. (2) ‘Vacuum Genesis’ - the vacuum genesis hypothesis, I maintain, is different. It is a derivative of the zero-energy universe hypothesis, that states that as the net energy of the universe is zero (virtually proven by the homogeneity of the universe), there is no energy to ‘create’ without time, thus it simply exists. [1] I request my opponent to click my first source to find out why exactly I think the universe is from ‘nothing’. (3) P2 of the KCA - I refute these as my position is that the singularity prior to the Big Bang existed eternally, NOT the universe, thus I nonetheless have to refute Pro’s interpretation of the BGV theorem and the actual infinities argument. (4) Fine-tuning - Once more, I am forced to show the sources overview against this alleged ‘dishonesty’. It does not matter what Hawking *believes*. Since my opponent refuses Wikipedia as a source, I needed a source to just tell my opponent what the second law of thermodynamics IS. The Second Law says that there are more disordered states than ordered states, and the alleged fine-tuning is about randomness. Sources My opponent has ACCEPTED my ‘sources’ note, but still continues to question the PERSONAL beliefs of authors of my books instead of accepting that I got ONLY one piece of information there. For example, if I use a book that supports the KCA to explain what 1+1 is, my opponent attacks that, but while the Pro-KCA is personal belief, 1+1=2 is a FACT. This is misconduct on my opponent’s part. R1) Cosmology RIA. Causality Is Not Required The hypothesis I present is the vacuum genesis hypothesis. Let me illustrate the difference with the vacuum fluctuation argument. The zero-energy genesis hypothesis is a derivative of the zero-energy universe, that states that as the net energy in the universe is zero, only zero net energy need be ‘caused’, thus causality is not required. [1] Secondly, the zero-energy universe hypothesis, even if incorrect, remains logically consistent with existing laws, thus such a logically consistent hypothesis implies that causality is not required. I did not say the M-theory is unlikely, I said it’s not proven. The M-theory is possible, and I cite the ekpyrotic model as it is logically consistent with existing laws, thus a cause is not required. The logic behind the vacuum genesis hypothesis is as follows: “In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the ‘false vacuum’, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest , it gains kinetic energy as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.” [1] According to the temporal impossibility of causality, the little energy required for this (i.e. within the false vacuum, as it is a “sea of [very little] fluctuating energy”) literally came out of nothing. [1] Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These annihilations produce the energy required for the universe to begin, LITERALLY without a cause. “Since the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion of a zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. … the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. … the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein’s theory of general relativity.” [2] The Quentin Smith paper that I cited involved vacuum fluctuations as an example of causality not being required, thus is irrelevant to this attack by my opponent. The distinction between these two models is as follows: the inflationary theory of the zero-energy genesis hypothesis (which is a recent theory and the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe) says the universe has zero net energy, but energy nonetheless, which need not have a cause. The vacuum fluctuation model is the ORIGIN of the zero-energy genesis hypothesis, which is a MAJOR variation with the flaws corrected, and, instead of proposing the universe itself is a vacuum fluctuation, posits that the uncaused energy further expanded via. the vacuum by antimatter-matter particle annihilations. Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its antiparticle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the Universe is completely flat. In that case, the Universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever. [3] RIB. P2 of KCA Hilbert’s hotel merely says that infinite number of people will check in and it will never stop. And infinite will check out progressively, yet never stopping (similar to Friedman’s calculations). What is paradoxical of this? Secondly, infinity plus infinity IS infinity, but how in the world is it even paradoxical? It is veridical and does not, in any way, disprove actual infinities. In fact, the set theory of mathematics *accepts* actual infinities. [4] Now, onto gravitational singularities. According to standard gravitational singularities, the infinite density of the singularity actually does refer to PHYSICAL infinite energy density. Physicist and mathematician John D. Barrow writes, “Another type of infinity arises in gravitation theory and cosmology. Einstein's theory of general relativity suggests that an expanding Universe (as we observe ours to be) started at a time in the finite past when its density was infinite — this is what we call the Big Bang. Einstein's theory also predicts that if you fell into a black hole, and there are many black holes in our Galaxy and nearby, you would encounter an infinite density at the centre. These infinities, if they do exist, would be actual infinities.” [5] My opponent's argument is refuted: Barrow defines an actual infinity, “Aristotle distinguished potential infinities from what he called actual infinities. These would be something you could measure, something local, for example the density of a solid, or the brightness of a light.” [5] As general relativity is proven mathematically [6], actual infinities exist. If there IS a fourth dimension of time, then Craig’s interpretation of BGV theorem is most certainly flawed, since the temporal dimension would completely change classical understanding of time, unless relativity is questioned [7]. RIC. Teleology 1. Teleology is relative. There are various ways to generate the supposed ‘telos’ of various things, such as life via. natural selection. 2. This can be refuted via. a quantum superposition view of the ‘many-world’ theory, that posits that all quantum events are fulfilled simultaneously except for a single view of observation. Therefore, a world with our apparent fine-tuning isn't actually that rare, since all possible outcomes are created. Superposition is actually a property transferable from part to whole via. wave-function collapse explanation. [8] 3. Finally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders the apparent ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe an act of chance, regardless of the source confusion addressed above. [9] R2) Religious Experience #1. Fairy argument was not dropped. Previous round: “This is nonetheless an experience, ergo ‘why’ is not a good refutation. If something is experienced, then it is definitely true by the logic of this argument.” This has been dropped by Pro. #2. Extend prior response. #3. The question-begging doesn’t matter here, since its irrelevant to ad hoc. #4. Supernatural questions science, ergo #4 not fulfilled regardless of whether defined or not, as impossible (demonstrated previously). #5. How are these religious experiences TESTABLE? Not shown at all by Pro, I have acutely demonstrated metaphysical explanations for RE are testable. R3) OV2 There is NO good reason to think why deism is true as I have refuted all my opponent’s arguments. Following this, by the OV, since I have refuted ALL my opponent’s arguments and shown how the supernatural is impossible, I maintain that without proving it, God being ‘beyond’ this is false and dogmatic simply because its not proven. Every aspect of the definition must be SUPPORTED. Pro has also dropped my argument against a polytheistic deity. Quantum superposition, atemporal minds, etc. render God’s existence impossible, and Pro dodges this with ad hoc arguments and shifting the goalposts. Thus, I extend the OV to ensure these arguments still stand. Sources in comments due to character restraints.