Science has rendered theism unreasonable

Thanks Con. Outline Much of what I am going to argue is the attributes that Pro has argued in Theism are not compatible with what we know about science. Moreover, that the universe is what it would appear if it spontaneously arose naturally. Note the definition of theism I am arguing against. God: A superhuman being or spirit with “supernatural power over nature or human fortunes”Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe. The underlined portions will constitute my case, especially the creator aspect, as that is one of the principle beliefs of theists today. I will make 2 cases which are well-supported by science: 1. A supernatural power (God) cannot affect nature/human fortunes 2. A supernatural power (God) cannot be the cause of the universe Either of these will render theism untenable as defined. 3. God cannot be the cause of the universe The Universe Lacks A Cause To argue that God created the universe also argues that the universe itself is caused by God (with God himself being the Efficient Arestolian Cause), however this runs into significant problems as causes can only occur if tensed facts exist. However such tensed facts can only occur within the A-Series of time (Presentism etc. being subsets), moreover science provides significant evidence against the A-Series of time, and significant evidence in favour of the B-Series off time (which is tenseless). To formulate: P1. The universe is caused if and only if tensed facts exist P2. Tensed facts do not exist C. The universe is uncaused Hence if the universe is uncaused, the clearly God couldn’t have caused it either. Premise 1 is uncontroversial in among time theorists, including cosmological argument proponents such as William Lane Craig, who affirms: “From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."[1] So, the only point in contention is P2, which science affirms in earnest. The theory of relativity describes the universe in a four-dimensional ontology, with time itself being another axis in a four-dimensional plane. Affects we see such as length contraction and time dilation result from time being a tangable dimension, with sequential events approaching in a manner which violates the A-Series of time. Moreover, these assumptions of relativity (that the speed of light is constant, and the laws of physics are the same everywhere, which is well-supported by observation) lead to successful predictions made by Quantum Mechanics & Quantum Electrodynamics, which have also been astonishingly successful (which would most likely have been impossible if the A-Series of time was true). With this in hand, the universe itself never had a ‘beginning’ per say, but only a first-moment in time. The universe just exists as-is, with the past present & future all existing simultaneously, and hence cannot have been created. Moreover, observations in quantum mechanics necessarily entail the existence of the future (and hence the falsehood of the A-Series of time), which I can formulate: P1) If the A-Series of time is true, then retrocausality is impossible P2) Retrocausality is true C) The A-Series of time is false P1 is uncontroversial, since Presentism literally requires only the ‘present’ to ever exist, by definition, to deny this is to deny the law of identity. P2 we know is true from results in delayed-choice in quantum mechanics. Moreover the predictions made by assuming retrocausality are fulfilled with tremendous accuracy so long as information is not transmitted.[4] Quantum Eternity Theorum The Quantum Eternity theorem is the result of plugging in energy values into the putative Hamiltonion of the universe, it finds that if the universe has a net positive amount of energy, that the universe itself must be eternal. As stated by Sean Carrol: “Quantum Eternity Theorem” (QET) — under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future” Moreover, if the net energy of the universe is zero, then time itself is emergent (and hence the A-series of time is false). Here I can make a horned dilemma based on the Quantum Field Theory P1) Either the total energy of the universe is 0, or >0 P2) If the total energy of the universe is >0, then the universe is eternal (and hence uncreated) P3) If the total energy of the universe is 0, then time is emergent (and hence uncaused) C) In either case God did not create the universe God can not Interact with the UniverseWe know from particle physics that for particls to interact, force-carriers are required. Gluons, W, Z- Bosons, Photons, The Higg's Boson and Fermions are all self-contained within the standard model, probably the most successful model in physics to date, with no exceptions found.God, being immaterial would not be able to interact with the universe as he will intrinsically lack these force-carriers. Ergo it would be like a ghost passing through a table, it's for this reason why particles such as neutrinos, and perhaps Dark Matter are impossible to detect, since they hardly interact.[10 Universe Does Not Require God Here I can made a modal argument for the redundancy of God, and further exemplify the relevant points as to why it’s more representative of a universe that arises naturally. P1. If God is necessary, then spontaneous natural creation of the universe is impossible P2. Spontaneous natural creation of the universe is possible C. God is unnecessary P1 is as sound as 2+2=4 if we assume ‘natural’ literally means ‘Non-Intelligently Caused’, and is the the modal formulation: NG -> ~P~G Axiom 1 & 2. So the only room for debate is premise 2, which is increasingly affirmed by what we know of science. As I already affirmed in the quantum eternity theorem, the only way the universe could not be eternal is if the energy content of the universe is zero, this has the direct implication that the universe on average, contains zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles, and hence according the the laws of physics (quantum mechanics and thermodynamics), the universe that we see today could only have arisen naturally from a state of “zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles” if there is no ‘net energy’ in the universe today. Moreover such a universe can only exist if and only if the geometry of the universe is spacially flat. That is exactly what we find when studying the cosmic microwave background, NASA scientists found that the universe is flat to within 0.4% error with most recent measurements, down from 15% in 2001.[5] Furthermore, we know that empty space (absent of any energy, particles, photons) itself is instable, and spontaneously according the laws of quantum mechanics yields a bubbling brew of particles & anti-particles which annihilate on short-timescales (according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) which when gravity is applied, leads to particles of impunity. In other words, if you take empty space, and leave it, particles that persist will arise, which can easily account for the ‘stuff’ of the universe.[6,7] Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for ‘spaces’ and ‘times’ to bubble and spontaneously appear. We know under these physics that such bubbles would almost instantly collapse (transient), and hence cannot yield our universe, unless these bubbles ‘inflated’, only then will these ‘bubbles’ of spacetime be long-lived enough to give rise to the universe today. The CMB itself is tremendous evidence that inflation actually happened, the ‘blotches’ observed are naturally and readily explained by quantum fluxuations ‘blown up’ into large proportions and ‘froze out’ with a rapidly inflating universe, moreover the ‘flatness’ of the universe is very naturally explained by inflation (since the surface of a sufficiently large sphere appears flat). Such evidence has lead to most physicists summizing that the universe is self-contained, and hence does not require an external cause of any shape of form. Summary So, entirely by the laws of quantum mechanics, and gravity, a universe sans time, space, particles and energy can arise from a state that lacks them. Moreover the mechanisms by which they occur are spontaneous, and not intelligent, which is clear-cut not a God. Here I will summarize with three points. 1. God could not have caused the universe 2. The universe could have arisen naturally 3. The universe appears exactly as we would expect if the universe arose naturally Hence, theism in light of the evidence is untenable. References 1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 2. http://arxiv.org... 3. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. “A Universe from Nothing” – L Krauss Ch. 9 8. http://arxiv.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...