General Relativity Implies that God does not Exist

General statements I will address some conceptual issues around the nature of science and philosophy before I begin. In his last round, Miles stated that general relativity can't show the non-existence of god because my first premise is a philosophical premise.However, numerous scientific conclusions are made with the use of philosophical premises. For example, the famous EPR experiment made a scientific conclusion about quantum mechanics using nothing but pure thought and conceptual thinking rather than empirical evidence. The practice of science itself clearly requires a large amount of deductive thinking, so to characterize science as nothing more than experimental results, and anything further beyond that as "philosophy", seems to be a mischaracterization. To draw an analogy to science, I am taking a hypothesis about the origins of the universe and checking with known physical facts to see if there is any contradiction between the two. I would agree with the scientist Sam Harris in arguing that science should have a broad definition. Harris writes “I am, in essence, defending the unity of knowledge—the idea that the boundaries between disciplines are mere conventions and that we inhabit a single epistemic sphere in which to form true beliefs about the world…. Is there really a boundary between the truths of physics and those of biology? No. And yet it is practical, even necessary, to treat these disciplines separately most of the time. In this sense, the boundaries between disciplines are analogous to political borders drawn on maps. Is there really a difference between California and Arizona at their shared border? No, but we divide this stretch of desert as a matter of convention.” [1] In other words, distinctions between philosophy and science are mere convention, so this does not constitute a sound objection to my argument. In the words of Noam Chomsky, “The status of philosophy as distinct from the sciences or history is artificial. Until the nineteenth century there was no such distinction. You can't answer the question whether Hume or Kant were philosophers or scientists-they were both." [2] P1 Suppose that god creates the universe from metaphysical time. According to the law of excluded middle, metaphysical time either has a beginning, or existed forever (I am ignoring potential infinities because Miles believes that potential infinities are not actual infinities). We can rule out the second option without argument because Miles believes that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. From this, the only option we’re left with is that metaphysical time had a beginning. But if god exists within a finite metaphysical time, then wouldn’t god require a beginning as well, since god’s existence at the first instant of metaphysical time would represent the beginning of god? The idea of creation from metaphysical time would then contradict the definition of god as lacking a beginning. The metaphysical time scenario also contradicts the definition of god as being timeless as well, since god would exist in a form of time. Miles could instead argue that god exists outside of metaphysical time and causes metaphysical time, but then he’s just returned to the same dilemma he was trying to solve. Furthermore, this entails an impossible form of self-causation. If god exists within metaphysical time, then he exists at the first moment of metaphysical time, and this would represent the beginning of god. All of this, however, would entail that god causes himself, because god exists at the first moment of metaphysical time, and god causes this first moment of metaphysical time, leading god to cause his own beginning! (The reader is free to replace “instant” with “interval” if they prefer to deny that metaphysical time has a first instant.) The introduction of metaphysical time seems to be of no help to Miles’ argument. Miles Donahue raises the issue of whether or not causation has to be temporal. As I clarified in my opening argument, the type of causality I’m talking about is efficient causality, where something brings something else into being. My assertion is that efficient causality is temporal, because if something comes into being, then the meaning of this statement is that it now exists when it did not exist before, which requires time. Otherwise, there is no meaningful sense in which the thing did not exist before. Miles offers examples of atemporal causation; For example, god sustaining an abstract object atemporally. However, in this causal relationship, we have an example where god is a sustaining cause (something which keeps something else in being) rather than an efficient cause (something which brings something else into being), so it is not detrimental to my argument. If efficient causality is necessarily temporal, then the “Problem of atemporal causation” still holds, and the theist still needs to assert that god caused the universe at the same time he created it in order to escape it, entailing that god would have created the universe at an instantaneous moment. When I stated that two things which are simultaneous are also instantaneous, I was not being precise with my terms, and Miles rightly demonstrated that my phrasing leads to absurdity. What I meant to say was that in a given cause-and-effect relationship, if the cause is simultaneous with the effect, then the causal relationship happens at an instantaneous moment. I think that this principle is obviously true if one starts to think about it. If the cause is simultaneous with the effect, then there cannot be a temporal gap between the two by definition. If there were a temporal gap, then we are clearly not talking about simultaneous cause and effect. By the law of excluded middle, either the cause and effect happen at an instant, or there is a duration of moments (or an interval, if you so prefer) between them. Since we have already eliminated the possibility that there could be a duration of moments between the cause and the effect, then the only option we have left is that the cause and the effect happen at an instant. Therefore, in a given cause-and-effect relationship, if the cause is simultaneous with the effect, then the causal relationship happens at an instantaneous moment. This principle entails the truth of premise 4, as I will demonstrate below in order to avoid making bare assertions. In a given cause-and-effect relationship, if the cause is simultaneous with the effect, then the causal relationship happens at an instantaneous moment. If god causes the beginning of the universe (cause-and-effect relationship), and god’s causing the beginning of the universe (cause) happens simultaneously with the universe coming into being (effect), then the causal relationship happens at an instantaneous moment. Thus, P1.4 is well-supported, and in my opinion, obviously true. P2 This debate concerns the conditional proposition that “If general relativity is true, then god does not exist”. My entire argument is a defense of this conditional statement. At no point do I have to provide an argument that general relativity is true, only that if it were true, it would entail the non-existence of god. This allows me to sweep aside the entire problem of quantum gravity that Miles brought up. In private communication, Miles agreed with me that his attack on P2 was outside of the parameters of the debate, and stated that he would reformulate his argument in the next round to make it appropriate. Therefore, I can do nothing in regards to this premise but wait for the next round.ConclusionThe following criticisms were made of Miles' arguments.1: Metaphysical time leads to absurdities and fails to solve the dilemma.2: Efficient causation has to be temporal, even if other forms of causation do not have to be, which is sufficient for my arguments to be sound.3: In a given cause-and-effect relationship, if the cause is simultaneous with the effect, then the causal relationship happens at an instantaneous moment. 4: Arguments from quantum gravity are outside of the scope of the resolution.