God does not exist.

AveIntroductory NoteCon doesn't respond to this, so I assume that the issue been settled to his satisfication. Pulling an ApeironCon used pictures of text to exceed the character limit by 2k. He says that I should 'not have minded' what he did. This is absurd. Of course I'm going to mind it if my opponent cheats the character limit to get an unfair advantage! At first I wasn't going to pursue this point because it could have been an accident, but I believe that the voters should take into account the fact that rather than apologizing, Con has tried to justify his cheating.My CaseI have to admit that I am somewhat disturbed by the methodology Con has laid out in his last round. If a scientific fact supports the Quran, then it’s readily accepted as true. If a scientific fact contradicts the Quran, then it’s a priori false. This is not the way a worldview should be constructed. The facts should be considered on their own merit. I want the audience to keep Con’s methodology in mind when it comes to discussion about science in the Quran.The first piece of evidence for my first argument is Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Physicists derive equations from the theory of relativity called metric tensors, which describe the type of universe we live in. Using these equations, physicists develop what is called a Friedmann--Robertson-Walker metric of the universe. According to these metrics, there is no space-time coordinate corresponding to T=0. It therefore implies that every state of time is half-open, confirming the first premise. Con has not made any challenges to the logical validity of the argument, so if the first premise is more plausibly true than the negation, then the conclusion that god does not exist logically follows.I’d also like to review the evidence for the theory of relativity in light of Con’s recent statements: ‘’The Hafele-Keating experiment demonstrates time dilation, which is a prediction of general relativity. The orbit of Mercury is experimental vindication of the theory of relativity’s equations. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton’s equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true.’’Now, Con presents no counter to any of the evidence I have presented. Instead, he objects to this argument on the basis that it isn’t part of the Islamic religion to accept what science says. This statement is completely irrelevant to the truth of the argument. The Quran may something about not having to listen to science, but this doesn’t have anything to do with the scientific evidence that confirms the first premise as true.Con has also taken the introduction of my article out of context and contorts it in order to attack a straw man. My introduction stated that any theist who argues for god based on Big Bang cosmology must also accept the equations that get you to Big Bang cosmology. This is trivially easy to demonstrate as true. My contention was not, as Con makes it to be, that every theist has to agree with whatever a scientist says. I won’t waste any time answering to an argument that I didn’t make.Con also presents a manifestly circular argument. He states that he rejects my argument from relativity because it contradicts the existence of god. That’s just reasoning in circles! You can’t object to an argument against your position by simply stating your position. I may as well say that all of Con’s arguments are wrong because atheism is true if that was the case.It’s also ridiculous for Con to reject the theory of relativity. In his opening statement under the section called ‘’Expanding universe’’, Con states that Friedmann, Einstein, and others discovered that the universe as expanding. Con fails to realize that the expansion of the universe was deduced from the equations of general relativity! His position of rejecting the theory of relativity while using Friedman’s work is both ironic and self-contradictory.Furthermore, if Con is to reject the theory of relativity, then he has to explain all of the evidence I presented in my opening statement, from the Hafele-Keating experiment, to the orbit of Mercury, the hundreds of other proofs of Einstein’s theory which still stands today.Con also talks about how science can be wrong in the future. I’m wondering where anyone asserted that there was absolute certainty in what science says. I’m only arguing that, given the scientific evidence, the first premise is more plausibly true than the negation. It’s a probabilistic argument, not an argument based on certainty.I also presented a trivial example of sufficient causation: the exact of playing checkers is the sufficient cause of why there are pieces on the board. For some reason, Con considers this ‘’wrong logic’’. I am absolutely stunned that anyone would challenge this. Sufficient causation means that, once a situation is made real (goes from possible to actual), something else follow from it. Once a game of checkers is made real, the pieces on the board will follow from it. This is an entirely valid example of sufficient causation. Con rejects this for no stated reason, leaving me, and most likely other people, very confused.Con’s final statements in regards to my argument only serve to beg the question that there has to be an external cause, or something that terminates the temporal series of events going back into the past. Con puts these forward by bare assertion alone, so I don’t feel any need to make substantial criticisms of his reasoning.Now, let’s turn to my argument against the existence of a necessary being. Con doesn’t dispute that the concept of a necessary being analytically entails its own instantiation. Con doesn’t dispute that a concept can analytically entail only another concept, and cannot be related in such a way to its own instance. Con also doesn’t dispute the logical validity of the argument. The conclusion that ‘’The concept of a necessary being is incoherent.” therefore follows logically.Con’s CaseIn my criticism of Con’s argument, I pointed out that it really doesn’t matter to this debate if the Quran was divinely inspired or not. While that is certainly an interesting question, it is not the topic of the debate. There is no reason to think that ‘’god’’ as defined in R1 exists just because the Quran is divinely inspired. Con hasn’t said anything about this point, so I think his case loses just by way of being a red herring.I also argued that there are no real conclusions that can be made from the fact that some scientists convert to Islam. Scientists convert to many different religions every day, and some lose their religion. Con has not answered this point.I showed that Con’s argument about Dr. Moore is a logically invalid appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is only valid if the authority has expertise that is 1) relevant to the subject and 2) there exists consensus among experts on the subject. Con has not even attempted to demonstrate that both standards are met. All he does is say that many scientists have converted to Islam, but this falls under the second criticism I made, which has not been answered. (His quote from Dr. Maurice Bucaille has the same appeal to authority issues as his quote from Dr. Moore.)I argued that if the Quran made statements about embryology that were not able to be known without divine revelation, then there would be a frenzy over such a thing in embryology journals. For example, embryologists would constantly comb through the Quran trying to find information about their field. Con’s response is that they ignore all the evidence because it contradicts their religion (sound familiar?). The problem with this argument is that it remains unfalsifiable, and cannot be disproven. An unfalsifiable explanation is a bad explanation.I’ll just breeze through the problems with Quran cosmology as Con hasn’t made an effort to answer the bulk of my case. The fact that the universe is not expanding steadily, but is speeding up? Dropped. The fact that there is no model of the universe which states that it came from a prime nebula? Dropped. The fact that the description of the universe as coming from a ‘’cloud of gases’’ is unscientific? Dropped. The ambiguity of the verses Con cites? Dropped. The different translations which do not imply the same meaning as Con’s? Dropped.I give credit to Con for trying to answer my point about different translations. His only answer is that some translations are inaccurate because they did not take into account modern day science. However, this fails to respond to my argument. In order to demonstrate that my argument was bad, he needed to show that the particular translation I brought up was subject to such inaccuracies. He failed to do such a thing.I'll finish this section here, as I'm out of sufficient space.ConclusionI'll put it briefly and succintly: Con has dropped too many of my arguments, and too many of my criticisms, to be considered the winner of this debate.Vale