Existence of God

It is discussions like these that cause my mind to wonder and imagine all of the unknown knowledge just waiting for us. It's been fun Sir. I would first like to remind everyone that the Burden of Proof is on Pro. Based on this fact alone, I don’t see a way he gets a vote. Here is why… Ok, so what Pro did was provide a hypothesis regarding the origin of the universe. In this particular hypothesis, he claims God had to be the “causer”. This whole argument is filled with presumptions and assumptions, which by definition cannot be constituted as proof. Pro: “So we have established that within this chain of events there is a start. ” I agree, within the chain of events that you provided there would have to be a start. The flaw is, Pro cannot prove that these chain of events lead back to the beginning of the universe. If Pro can’t prove this, then his argument dies here. It’s easy to provide legitimate alternatives Pro’s claims. Pro is assuming this to be true, but in fact there are theories that would directly conflict with Pro’s hypothesis (or “proof” as he claims). String theory is one possible explanation. According to string theory, we only can observe 3 of a possible 9 dimensions. If we can’t observe 2/3 of what’s around us, how can we make a claim that an intelligent being created everything? We can’t. Pro cannot even prove that the universe had a beginning. What if the universe is infinite? It would directly oppose Pro’s hypothesis. I’ll touch more on the infinite possibility later. “I would also point out to the con that it is not impossible that time could exist without a universe although I would not go as far as to say that this is the case I maintain it could be. ” Well, since I see we are still playing the presumption game, I’ll concur, however every astrophysicist would disagree with you. But if this is the route that you want to take it only makes my case stronger. You admit we may not be able to grasp anything outside of the universe therefore we can’t make that positive claim. I actually agree with you and I made that same argument in round 2. “1)Yes, but you are making a claim to the cause of the universe, which would not be "in" the universe. 2a) Again, you are referencing laws within the universe. It is irrelevant. 2b) Yes, this would be the creation of the universe, A. K. A the beginning of space-time. Causality can only be applied after the Big Bang. ” The reason I made this argument is that it directly refutes Pro’s proof of a god. This is because the laws that Pro is referencing as “proof” may not even be relevant outside of the universe. That is why I am rather stunned that Pro used this argument against me. “It is perfectly possible that time is a human construct and simply a way of viewing the world to make greater sense of it and this concept can apply to anything as it is not an entity just an idea. ” I could say the same thing about Pro’s causality hypothesis that everything needs a cause…. Next. “In which cause the causal series could stretch beyond what we understand of the universe's creation in a plain that transcends what we understand of the universe. ” Finally something we agree on. We do not know, therefore it could. But it is also possible it couldn’t. The fact that Pro claims not to know these answers is working against him, but at least he is finally being honest. Pro’s “proof of God” is getting more and more unlikely. “The con asks the question why does God not have a cause and to this I would reply that he is missing the point. ” He is the missing point huh? Does Pro show proof that he is the missing point? If Pro wants to win a debate where he proves God, and the burden of proof is on him, he would need to prove that he is the missing point. Even if the “First Cause” was probable, it still wouldn’t prove the existence of God. This would state everything needs a cause except God. Again, that is a major assumption. If I knew that (A+ B=12) with ‘12’ representing the universe, and ‘A’ and ‘B’ representing possible causes, then logically I can see that there are 2 causes (A and B). I cannot assume ‘A’ is 9 and ‘B’ is 3, when there are many other possibilities, which includes (10+2), (7+5), etc. Maybe an unknown particle that is beyond our comprehension was the cause. And it burned up during the Big Bang, therefore we have no idea it ever existed. Why can’t the universe be infinite? Wouldn’t that solve the causality issue? It is all speculation, and none of this should be constituted as proof. “Luckily for me it is not necessary for me to prove that all that is possible as it is not entirely relevant to the existence of God which as earlier demonstrated be proven through logic and the fact that the universe exists. ” This confused me. What I got out of it is because the universe exists, therefore God. I keep rereading this whole debate trying to find this proof that you demonstrated. I seen Pro claim what has to happen within the universe, but this doesn’t apply in the slightest when talking about the creation of it. Finally in this round Pro spoke about pre-universe, or outside of the universe. All he did was admit that we didn’t have answers. I hope Pro knows that this killed his argument, but I admire the honesty. When talking about something coming into existence, you must be able to explain the moments prior, which it was demonstrated that he cannot. As for his claim that he used logic to prove God, I propose he only provided logic based on assumption. This logic therefore cannot be applied to any truth statement. In conclusion, Pro can’t even prove his own hypothesis that everything needs to have a cause for the universe to exist, let alone proving an intelligent being we call God created it all. I’ve used this term hypothesis because that is all it is. Pro assumed that his original premise was fact. If he can’t prove step 1, then he cannot prove step 2, and so on (almost like his A,B,C argument this round). One of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen, Stephen Hawking even declares we do not need God to explain the beginning of the Universe. Hawking states: “[D]o we need a God to set it all up so a Big Bang can bang? … Our everyday experience makes us convinced that everything that happens must be caused by something that occurred earlier in time. So it’s natural for us to assume that something—perhaps God—must have caused the universe to come into existence. But when we’re talking about the universe as a whole, that isn’t necessarily so. ” This is a no brainer. It is impossible to read this debate and come out feeling like you just saw a formula that proved Gods existence. Reminder: The Burden of Proof is on Pro. Stephen Hawking Souce: . http://theosophical.wordpress.com...