It is likely that a God or gods exist

Observations Ob1: If I can refute any *one* of the properties of this creator, e.g. the creator is transcendent, an external cause of the universe, and exists *presently*, then I win this debate. Ob2: Note that ‘exist’ is a verb in the *present tense*. Therefore, Pro’s arguments are not sufficient if they merely justify God likely *existed*, but that he is real and is somewhere *currently*. C1) An External Cause Is Impossible CIA. Causality is Impossible According to scientific consensus, there was no time before the universe. [1] Without time, speaking of causes itself is incoherent. All causes, in order to be meaningful, need to have a state of affairs where events did or did not happen. Causality requires entropy, and without time, by the second law of thermodynamics, there cannot be entropy. [2] Therefore, causality is impossible. P1: If God exists, the universe has a cause. P2: The universe cannot have a cause. C: Therefore, God cannot exist, and, hence, does not exist. This shows that the concept of cosmic causality is flawed, and God does not exist, even if timeless. CIB. Quantum Superposition According to quantum superposition, an external cause of the universe is impossible. P1: A transcendent agency is all-seeing. P2: Observation collapses quantum superposition. P3: We observe that quantum superpositions of particles are *not* collapsed. C: An all-seeing entity cannot exist. Defense of P1 If an entity is *outside* spacetime, then it can see all objects. The very nature of an external cause allows it to be all-seeing. In addition, this definition of God is all-seeing. Defense of P2 All particles are at a state called a quantum superposition, viz. when they, for example, move in a particular direction towards a point, they simultaneously follow *all* possible routes towards that point, but they can be observed moving in only one route. [3] This applies to all actions of particles. Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger created a thought experiment called Schrodinger’s cat, which illustrates the state of a quantum superposition, viz. when a cat is thrown into a box with poisonous gases, the cat is simultaneously *both* alive and dead, but we observe it as either alive or dead (not real - a cat is a biological system that will be either alive or dead; this is an *example* to show quantum superposition). [4] For God to be all-observing, he has to be able to observe all superpositions of a particle, i.e. every state of it that it is simultaneously. This is impossible by the law of quantum superposition, and, therefore, observation will collapse all the superpositions till only one position. Defense of P3 But quantum superpositions are still present, which means nothing is observing them, or they would have *all* collapsed and left the particle in a single state. As quantum superpositions exist, they are not collapsed, which implies they are not being observed. Defense of Conclusion Since quantum superpositions are not collapsed, there is nothing external to the universe because then it would have collapsed quantum superpositions by nature. Therefore, God does not exist. CIC. Argument from Atemporal Minds P1: If God exists, then an atemporal mind exists. P2: An atemporal mind requires a process. P3: All processes are temporal. C: Therefore, God does not exist. P1 is true by definition. To argue otherwise is to argue God is temporal, but as time did not exist prior to the existence of a universe, God could not have created the universe. P2 is justified in that a creator God is an *intelligent* being by definition; refuting this would be saying God is not even a mind, which then clashes with the ideas presented in Pro’s own contentions, and contentions cannot be withdrawn in any debate setting. Intelligence requires a process, thus every mind requires a process. P3 is shown in that a process is a *graduation* of changes, and thus requires a period for the process to begin and end. Without time, there is no period for the process, and the process cannot be contingent on anything, but everything abstract is contingent on something and has a requirement. For Pro to refute this, it will *require* ad hoc reasoning, but an abductive inference requires least ad hoc explanations, thus an ad hoc explanation cannot refute God’s existence. C2) Causality Is Not Required We are led to cosmology and the causal premise, that questions the very origin of the universe. The causal premise is a premise that is used to support the existence of God via. cosmological arguments, which takes the structure: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.” But this is being questioned in light of recent physics and cosmological models, as explained in a paper by Quentin Smith in the Philosophy of Science journal of 1988. “There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.” [5] An example of this is a quantum mechanical fluctuation. During a quantum fluctuation, a particle and an antiparticle are created in the quantum vacuum without cause for a short period, as allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and they annihilate to release energy in the form of ‘packets’ (photons or quanta). [6] An uncaused agency to exist for a long time is possible via. more recent physical theories, e.g. the zero-energy genesis hypothesis, which states that the sum of all energy in the universe takes a net value of zero, due to vector gravitational force acting as ‘negative’ energy to cancel out scalar ‘positive’ energy. The hypothesis allows for the uncaused formation of a gravitational singularity. This is supported by the fact that the universe is homogeneous. [7] C3) Law of Parsimony The Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that the explanation with least number of assumptions is more likely than other explanations. [8] An explanation of atheistic metaphysical naturalism makes less assumptions than deism, thus allowing parsimony to deem atheism more likely than theism. The assumptions of deism are: the existence of a physical universe, the existence of natural laws, and the existence of God. The assumptions of metaphysical naturalism are the existence of a physical universe and natural laws, which is one less assumption than theism or deism. Thus, atheism is more likely than theism. R1) Cosmological Argument RIA. The Causal Premise My primary refutation of the Cosmological Argument shall be to question the first premise by using the very same contentions used by me above. The causality of the *universe* is not required. This is justified by the zero-energy genesis hypothesis, which states that the sum of all energy in the singularity prior to the Big Bang was precisely zero, thus its net value need not have been created. [9] This is justified by the relative homogeneity of the universe and its constant expansive acceleration by the presence of dark energy. [10] Secondly, as stated in C1, causality is impossible even from a timeless cause as causality relies on the then-nonexistent temporal dimension and its conceivability is incoherent otherwise. Quantum superposition also dictates that an external cause is *impossible*. RIB. Unjustified Properties Pro must justify that “the only things that can possess timelessness and immateriality that we know of are abstract bodies and disembodied supernatural minds”. The latter is not “known of”, and then I can presume that even a non-sentient force may be beyond time, but that too is impossible as even a timeless cause requires temporality. R2) Teleological Argument I shall be defending that the so-called fine-tuning of the universe is because of random reactions from the vacuum genesis hypothesis. Gravity allows for the universe to be created out of sheer physical necessity and randomness in such a fine-tuned state without being improbable, because the very nature of the second law of thermodynamics is such that the conditions of randomness require all particle reactions to be random. Since life emerged only approximately 3.6 billion years ago [11], the entropy conditions of the universe then must have been rather high. This entropy signifies that the chemical and physical reactions that caused life were *random* from the Big Bang itself, as graduating disorder. [12] Thus, the fine-tuning argument is refuted. R3) Religious Experience My refutation to this argument is rather simple. Spiritual experiences are subjective, thus merely signifying that God has subjective reality. But ‘existence’ refers to “having objective reality or being.” [13] Secondly, the probability of delusion and lies is also *very high* for people with *objective* and *physical* experience of God. Thus, the Argument from Religious Experience is refuted. Conclusion God cannot exist and need not exist, thus probably does not exist. The resolution is resoundingly negated. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. Hawking, S.W. (1988). A Brief History of Time. pp. 151-153. 3. Griffiths, David J. (2013). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. pp. 106-109. 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com...13. Google ["define exist"]