Resolved: God Exists

First, I would like to apologize for forgetting to address the “Religious Experience” argument. I shall address it later in this round. I laud Pro’s arguments. Rebuttals Cosmological Argument Contingencies Pro says that S has to be “contingent on” something. I understand this to be that if there is an entity x that is contingent, then there needs to be a non-contingent entity y that x is “contingent on”. This has to be demonstrated. I used the Hume-Edwards Principle to illustrate that if x, y and z are the only things in a location S, and x, y, and z need to be contingent, there need not be a non-contingent agency to support this existence. [1] Properties The Cosmological Argument merely attempts to demonstrate the existence of a non-contingent source, not necessarily a transcendent creator. Nonetheless, I shall accept this and refute the other arguments with regards to properties. Omniscience Pro must demonstrate, with proof, how God is beyond definite certainty limiting contingencies, as this is a logical conclusion. By Rule 3, Pro must show how God is beyond this, as Pro seems to imply that God is beyond human logic. Ontological Argument Ontological Nonexistence “Being possible is the ‘default’ state, it can only be claimed that something is necessary or impossible if proven so, otherwise it is possible.” I beg to differ. It must also be demonstrated if something is possible. Pro assumes existence is the “default” state without citing any proof. As Pro did not provide proof of their derivation of ontology (eg. “It is possible for God to exist”), I need not provide proof either. “I could also take issue with P1, as if my ontological argument is sound, then P1 is false.” Pro has not demonstrated how their ontological argument is sound. I shall demonstrate how mine is sound via. logical incoherencies. If there are logical incoherencies, then the epistemological possibility of P3 further entails metaphysical possibility (i.e. the metaphysical impossibility of the existence of God). Logical Incoherencies Omnipotence By the definitions of this debate, God is an omnipotent being, i.e. God is able to perform any action, natural or supernatural. If a being is omnipotent, then it should be able to create a task that it is unable to perform. But as it is unable to perform that action, it is not omnipotent. If the being is unable to create that task, then it is not omnipotent. [2] Therefore, the property of omnipotence is a logical incoherency. Omniscience As demonstrated in the Cosmological Argument’s rebuttal, omniscience is a logical incoherency as it defies the existence of any contingency. [3] Pre-creation In the rebuttals to the “Naturalistic Origins” argument, Pro says God is the finite source of the universe. This rests on the unproven assumption that God does not have a source. [4] While this may not be a direct logical incoherency, it is an incoherency based on the facts that it contradicts Pro’s arguments. Thus, there are logical incoherencies. Hence, via. ontology, God is metaphysically impossible (though this is not an argument against the existence of God; this is merely to refute the Ontological Argument). Positivity of Existence & Greatness Pro must demonstrate the positivity of existence, as ontology entails that God being existent is positive. While God is benevolent by definition of this debate, Pro must prove the properties of God to demonstrate thus (eg. omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, “goodness”, et cetera). “The word ‘great’ entails a certain concept of magnanimity, which is to say that a ‘great’ being possesses good qualities in abundance. Power, knowledge and love are intuitively good qualities (even if we cannot exactly pinpoint *why* they are), so we can cogently suppose that a maximally great being would be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.” This would depend on a very specific definition of “good”. This brings the concept of definitive morality, which Pro seems to be arguing for. Pro must prove that morality is definite and non-relative, thus disproving ethical beliefs such as moral nihilism. Existence being a predicate entails absurd ontological conclusions, eg. if Narnia is epistemologically the greatest place conceivable, then it is possible that Narnia exists; from this, we entail the absurd conclusion that Narnia exists. If existence is a predicate, then Narnia existing is epistemologically possible, even if discounting extreme existential nihilism. [5] Subjective ExistenceObjectivity refers to non-influence of subconscious ideas. [6] Therefore, to have objective reality is to have physical reality. Having subconscious reality is an idea is non-metaphysical, epistemological and subjective by definition. God being in the mind as an idea is rational in comparison to God existing physically, which is the topic of this debate. A similar epistemological derivation can be performed in the example of unicorns: P1. Unicorns are conceived as the most beautiful creatures (hypothetically).P2. Positivity is epistemological being (by Pro’s arguments – I have presented my arguments against this).P3. Epistemological being can be objective existence in the mind.P4. Epistemological being can be objective existence.C. Unicorns exist. [5] Naturalistic Origin of the UniverseThe Causal PremiseAccording to the Uncertainty Principle, the uncertainty in energy can extend to energy being uncaused for a short period of time, till the uncaused energy and gravity cancel each other, supporting the zero-energy universe hypothesis [at least allowing it to be logically consistent with existing laws]. [7] There is no proof that everything that begins to exist has a finite cause. According to Heisenberg and the theorems of Penrose and Hawking, gravity (as applied via. quantum field theory) did exist prior to the Big Bang. [8] The question Pro refers is, “What created the singularity/gravity?” While the causal premise has been disproved (via. a different interpretation of the BGV Theorem that discounts classical physics, the Penrose-Hawking theorems, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), a philosophical way to address this argument is: if God created the universe, what created God? [4] One may argue that God exists out of necessity by definition, yet that is not part of the definition of this debate, hence must be proven. This is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the Big Bang; the other energy attributes of the universe preexist without cause, thus disproving the causal premise. Also, via. Hubble’s Law, the constant expansion of the universe is illustrated with further uncaused emergence of energy. [9] Mass-Energy EquivalenceThis argument merely illustrated how mass can emerge from energy and, therefore, does not need a cause, allowing for a breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Time UncertaintyThe energy enhanced by the quantum fluctuations created a singularity that allowed for the increase in energy temporarily. After the Big Bang, the energy rose in level not via. quantum fluctuations, rather emerging without cause and violating the Time Uncertainty. [10] Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics allowed for a shift between gravitational time and entropic graduation, forcing a change in the Higgs field itself and accounting for the emergence of entropy following the Big Bang. [7] Law of ParsimonyMetaphysical Naturalism vs. TheismAs previously illustrated, according to Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is a priori most likely in a set of options where either is possible and both have equal levels of proof. I have also demonstrated how the existence of God is a logical incoherency, allowing for Occam’s Razor to prevail in my favor and show that it is most likely that God does not exist. Religious ExperiencePhysically, I have shown the logical fallacies in the existence of God. With this and the application of ontology, mathematically, the chance of lying/delusion by those that have had the visions increases greatly, merely because of the metaphysical impossibility of the existence of God. Therefore, my arguments still stand and the RE argument is refuted relying on the other arguments. This also allows for my conclusion that mathematical arguments are untrustworthy without all viable and present data. When all data is present, a mathematical argument is trustworthy.NoteI would like to note that I have removed all complex mathematical formulas from this argument and kept it simple. If Pro requests, I can provide these formulas [Hubble's law, et cetera] in the next round. I thank Pro for an amazing debate. Pro's next argument shall be their last argument with conclusion, as they must waive Round 5. References [1] http://goo.gl... [2] Savage, C.W. (1967). “The Paradox of the Stone.” Philosophical Review. 76:1. pp. 74-79. [3] Craig, W.L. (1990). “Purtill on Fatalism and Truth.” Faith and Philosophy. [4] Hawking, Stephen; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam Books. p. 172. ISBN 0-553-80537-6.[5] http://goo.gl...[6] “Objective.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English.[7] http://infidels.org...[8] Hawking, Stephen; Penrose, Roger. “Singularities in Homogenous World Models.” Physical Letters.17:246-247.[9] http://www.pnas.org...[10] http://www.hawking.org.uk...