God Exists

I will first attack my opponent's case then address the attacks made on mine. First, my opponent makes the argument regarding the philosophy of Aristotle and the principle of the efficient cause. He does so by attacking the existence of tensed facts. A tensed fact is a fact that is true in relation to present experience but has no universal or permanent truth value. "Yesterday was July 26th", "today is Wednesday", or "I got a new job last month" are all tensed facts. Some people believe that God must know tensed facts to be omniscient. William Lane Craig formulates a hypothetical argument that God is not timeless as follows: 1. A temporal world exists. 2. God is omniscient. 3. If a temporal world exists, then if God is omniscient, God knows tensed facts. 4. If God is timeless, He does not know tensed facts. 5. Therefore, God is not timeless. There are, however, immense problems with this argument, regardless of whether or not we ultimately conclude that God is timeless. Tensed facts only exist relatively by definition: a tensed fact is relative to the temporal moment as experienced by the specific observer -- as the momentary experience changes, so may the accuracy of the tensed fact. Further, a tensed fact (such as "it is Wednesday") may or may not be "true" for a separate observer (such as someone on the other side of the world). Since there is by definition no universal and permanent truth or falsehood in tensed facts, God certainly does not know the universal and permanent truth or falsehood of any tensed fact -- it doesn't exist to be known. We could just as easily argue that since God does not know "the smell of the number red", He is not omniscient. But this is utter nonsense! In reality, though, such a nonsensical argument is no more absurd than the one offered above for God's temporality! In light of this, (4) above should be rewritten as such: 4. If God is timeless, there are no tensed facts relative to Him for Him to know. However, God is well aware that as we perceive Wednesday, then for us, the statement "it is Wednesday" is a true tensed fact. We should then also take an eraser to (3) and edit it to make it more clear: 3. If a temporal world exists, then if God is omniscient, God knows all tensed facts as perceived by others, given specific conditions. Thus, God knows all that we know, including tensed facts relative to us, in spite of the fact that He does not inherently change over time. Further, the specific knowledge that the original argument claims He does not have... does not (and cannot) even exist to be had. In conclusion, God does not change over time, He experiences no tensed facts personally, but He is aware of the truth value of tensed facts as they apply to us, and, clearly, none of this infringes upon His omniscience. Craig's prima facie adherence to B-relations and the primitive past cause his presentism to be subject to Taggart's paradox unless a reduction in temporal relations can be solved for. 1.) There is no available evidence for such a position (STE). In other words there is NO EVIDENCE that space-time existed eternally (without true beginning). To the contrary, all the scientific evidence points to the opposite view of "STE". Science says that the Universe did in fact have a finite beginning. A point in which space-time itself came into existence. To deny this is to deny science. To deny the evidence. To deny logic. 2.) B-theory of time is irrational and illogical because it is self-refuting for a number of reasons. "Static Time, or the B-Theory of time requires us to believe that our experience of change in the external world as well as within our own minds is wholly illusory. Both tenets are required to be believed if one wishes to hold to static time. However, If our changing experiences are themselves illusions, then we are experiencing a changing illusion, which is objective and leads to a vicious infinite regress. For example, if that change is an illusion, then something's causing that illusion, and that illusion, and that illusion. Therefore, the static theory of time is self-contradictory." There are also many many other serious problems with the B-Theory of time:: 3.) The delivery of the (supposed illusory) doses is perfect. There are no revealing dislocations of serial order of the moments. While there may be minor dislocations, there are none of the type that would definitely establish the illusory character of passage. We do not, for example, suddenly have an experience of next year thrown in with our experience of today; and then one of last year; and then another from the present. There are some minor dislocations, but they"re not the sort that suggests passage is illusory. They are the sort we would expect exactly if passage were objective, but there were occasional malfunctions of our perception of it. Take, for example, the odd experience we have under anesthesia of no time at all passing between the administration of the drug and its wearing off. That is easily explained in the passage view as a suspension of that part of our neural system that detects the passing moments. This world tube is like someone resting comfortably on a sofa. The sofa presses uniformly over the body, whose mind could in principle sense the pressure over the full length all at once. Yet the pressures are communicated to consciousness in a slow series that starts at the feet and marches inexorably up the length of the body to the pillow behind the head; and it is the same for every reclining body, without failure or serious dislocation. The result is that the reclining body and all others like it experience an illusory passage of pressure. If this sofa parable sounds fantastic, then you should find equally fantastic the same idea when applied to world tubes of brains. There is something odd in the idea that an element of our experience that is so universal and so solid and immutable is just an illusion. 4.) What of identifying the mechanism that restricts the delivery of moments to consciousness into the rigid series we experience? In particular, what in the neural machinery blocks us from having perceptions of tomorrow or next year? While neuroscientists have made enormous advances in recent years, I do not think that circuitry blocking this avenue of perception has been identified. But if passage is an illusion of our perception, there must be some mechanism that blocks us perceiving the future. "We should stop protecting our vanity and admit what is now becoming obvious. We have no good grounds for dismissing the passage of time as an illusion. It has none of the marks of an illusion. Rather, it has all the marks of an objective process whose existence is independent of the existence of we humans. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion." (John D. Norton- Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh-http://www.pitt.edu...) I could use all of my characters addressing this but I need to move on. The problem with my opponent's next argument and his use of quantum mechanics (the uncertainty principle mainly) is that it fails to account for the principle of the unmoved mover. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle simply states that it is impossible to measure both location and momentum simultaneously for infinite preciscion. However, these particles will have already existed and points us back to the unmoved mover. the original cause that had none. Every effect has a cause. except for the first effect. A few of the stipulations are a position around the "goldilocks zone" a gravity rich planet (Jupiter in our case) to draw away space debris, I don't have enough characters remaining to address this fully now. the 1 in 700 qunitillion number came from astrophysicist Erik Zackrisson at Upsala University in Sweden. I don't understand the point of the picture of cards but It isn't a rebuttal. the Earth or life existing has inherent value and is in no way arbitrary when factoring probability and a minute hand. the criterion of life I would argue are not random but rather carefully set in place by a Creator the probability of a random convergence of variables is very low. My opponents next argument is only relevant if we assume that a Creator would develop more than one of these hands. the force that rigged the hand would be the Creator. My opponent begins to attack me with a lack of definitions. before I provide them I would like to point the attention of the voters to my opponent's lack of definitions. the Theories of time, Tensed facts, the uncertainty principle, the efficient cause, many advanced philosophical and scientific terms undefined. Information content is clearly defined in my case. I'm not going to waste my few remaining characters redefining it. My opponent argues that the laws of physics govern chemistry however, if you look back on my case, you see that the contention in question regards both physics and chemistry a functional protein is a basic freshman bio term that is essentially a protein that serves a specific function as it's supposed to. the ability of life to adapt is not an argument that contradicts my point. and for the next argument, we're back to the unmoved mover. Furthermore, as for the necessary specificity of the amino acids in a protein, changing a single amino acid in a protein can cause a completely different functional protein to form, removing or adding a specific start or stop codon for example www.unc.edu/depts/our/hhmi/hhmi-ft_learning_modules/.../proteinfunxn.html Natural selection does not conflict with my case at all. the inherent limits of natural selection in regard to the origin of life should be largely apparent. I would elaborate now, but I'm out of characters.