God probably does not exist.

AveWe are debating god defined as ‘’the personal (rational and conscious, omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.’’. If Con wants to think of god in a different way, then he’s free to do so. However, he’s not free to provide arguments to support the existence of his idea of god, and not the one the resolution says we’re debating. Any argument presented that supports a god other than the above definition cannot be considered permissible when it comes to voting. I tried to work out a definition of god with Con before the debate, and it seemed like he agreed with the one in R1. He also accepted the framework and definitions in R1. Therefore, it is fair to disregard any arguments that do not relate to god as defined in R1.In the last round, I presented an argument against there being a first state of time. Every state of time must be represented by an end point with no beginning point, and since a first state of time is represented by a beginning point with no end point, it cannot exist. Since a first state of time cannot exist, a god who causes time cannot exist. Con does not disagree with this argument, and accepts it as true. He just says that it supports the Vedic idea of material reality existing forever. This does not matter to the resolution at all. We are not debating whether the Vedas are true. We are debating on the probability of god existing. Con agrees that the argument is true, so by implication, god defined as the resolution cannot exist. Does it contradict his conception of god? Maybe not, but that’s irrelevant, because we’re not debating the probability of his god existing. Therefore, this argument counts towards my case for the voting. Con even agrees that the god we're debating can't exist, since he accepts the arguments premises and conclusion.There is also a difference between ‘’there is no first state of time’’ and ‘’time existed forever’’. Con confuses the two many times in the debate. Even if every state of time is half-open, it does not mean everything existed forever. This would contradict the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, which states that our universe cannot be past-eternal (http://www.newgeology.us...). It also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Instead, my argument is that there is no first state of time, but the universe still had a ‘’beginning’’ in the sense that every state of time must be less than 13.9 billion years old, the age of the universe. In algebraic terms, if T represents a state of time, then every T < 13.9 billion years ago. As you go back into time, you never reach T=0, because that would be a mathematically impermissible singularity. Time looks like this instead: t=… 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001…, ad infinitum. There is clearly no first state of time for god to cause. However, none of these states of time existed more than or equal to 13.9 billion years ago. There is not a first state of time for god to cause, but time did not exist forever either. This diagram should make the concept more clear.Time on Con's view: What time looks like if every state of time is-half open, and there is no T=0 state. If every state of time is half-open, and there is no T=0 state, then it is incompatible with Con's view of time. As you can see from the two diagrams, a Vedic view of time would have states of time such as T= 20 billion years ago and T= 400 trillion years ago. However, on my view of time, such states of time cannot exist. There is no room for Con to say things like 'Pro's scientific argument only strengthens my case for the existence of God according to Vedic texts'. In reality, it explicitly contradicts Con's argument.Con tries to explain how god created the universe. The first thing he says is that 'God caused the material universe by way of expansion of energy'. There is no evidence presented to prove that this is true. He also says that energy existed forever, which is not given any evidence as well. Another assertion is that 'This energy could have been contained in a singularity or even a black hole'. No evidence is given for this as well! The entirety of Con's argument is a bare assertion. A bare assertion is a logical fallacy comitted when a premise is assumed to be true just because the person presenting it said so (http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...). I'd like to employ Hitchen's razor, which states 'that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Con asks why god has to have a cause if the universe doesn't. I never said that the universe didn't have to have a cause. The only thing that came close to this was when Quentin Smith said the universe had a 95% chance of coming into being uncaused. However, Quentin Smith is not talking about uncaused in the typical sense. He means to say that the universe came from something which had no cause. Quentin Smith says the following: 'Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.' (http://www.infidels.org...) The universe wasn't uncaused, but came from something that existed outside of time. Something that exists outside of time doesn't need a cause, because timeless things don't have beginnings.I presented an argument which showed that matter could form by simultaneous causation. Atoms A, B, and C come into existence at the same time, and they all cause each other. Con completely ignores this argument in the last round. This argument is a dropped point. This means that there is an explanation of matter without reference to god. Therefore, god probably did not create matter, and another attribute of god cannot be actualized.Let's review the debate, and see who supported their case better. The resolution states "God probably does not exist". The winner of the debate should be the person who proved their case beyond a prepoderance of the evidence. Con's burden was to show that an omnipotent, personal, conscious agent caused the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists is probably real. Con did no such thing during this debate. I would say that he didn't even try to. The Wavelength Function of the Universe demonstrates that an omnipotent being did not cause the universe. Con didn't respond to this argument. This means that the trait of being an omnipotent cause cannot be actualized. The theory of relativity shows us that a first state of time cannot exist. God can't cause 'space-time' or 'everything else that exists', because he can't cause time, as it has no beginning point. This is another trait of god that cannot be actualized. Con even agrees with this argument. Simultaneous causation shows how matter could have formed without god. Con doesn't respond to this argument as well. It's therefore improbable that a personal cause created matter, so another trait of god cannot be actualized. We have two reasons to think that an omnipotent being did not create the universe or matter, and none of them received any answers in the debate. We also had a reason to think that god cannot have caused time, which Con even agreed with. I believe I showed that god probably does not exist beyond a preponderance of the evidence.Vale