The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists - part 2

Thank you Con. My opponent claims they actually do have objections to the first two premises (1. something cannot come from nothing, 2. something cannot create itself). Yet, Con still has not addressed them, so those premises remain accepted. Until Con issues rebuttals against the first two, this debate remains focused on the final premise - the universe is finite. In Round 2, Con wrote, "No scientist ever claimed that the universe had a finite beginning based on evidence or observation." This is demonstrably false. Here are just two examples: the 2003 theorem developed by cosmologist and professor of evolutionary science Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proves that the universe, quote, "cannot have an eternal past" and therefore must have had a finite beginning [1]. The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has also confirmed, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." [2]. Once again, the only way for the universe to conceivably exist without a cause is if B Theory time rules supreme. Con thinks we have reason to believe it does, so let's explore - Relativity - Con cites the changing nature of time under special and general relativity as evidence that time is merely a property of the universe. Under this theory, the universe is not 3-dimensional but 4-dimensional, with spacetime serving as the 4th dimension. In such a reality, Con is right to conclude that the passage of time is merely an illusion of human consciousness, and time does not really pass at all but rather exists as a dimension, like our hypothetical loaf of bread. Here's what we know - relativity is true. The changing nature of time relative to frames of reference has been confirmed again and again through experiment. But that's not where the questions stop. There are 2 possible interpretations of what we observe: 1) Einsteinian/Minkowskian - there is no absolute space or time because there are no favored frames of reference. Objects exist in 4 dimensions tenselessly within spacetime. The passage of time is merely an illusion of human consciousness. 2) Lorentzian - Objects still exist in 3 dimensions. The changes in time and space we observe in relativity experiments (time dilation and length contraction) are effects on our measuring instruments, but do not necessarily reflect absolute reality. Although our instruments detect changes in space and time, it is still possible for there to be an underlying absolute (called the "aether") time that is currently undetectable (similar to the proposed existence of dark matter as a yet undetectable thing that explains the universe's gravity). Experimentally, the two interpretations are indistinguishable from each other, because Hendrik Lorentz's equations are mathematically equivalent to Einstein's. In other words, one could employ either theory's equations and arrive at the same results [3]. Lorentz himself admitted this when he wrote, "One thus comes to the same results as when one in agreement with Einstein and Minkowski denies the existence of the aether and the true time and treats all coordinate systems as equivalent. Which of the two modes of thought one may agree with is best left to the individual." [4] So, we have two theories that are mathematically equivalent, display equal predictive power, and provide possible explanations of reality. Do we have reason to accept one over the other? The answer is yes. Although the Einsteinian/Minkowskian interpretation has enjoyed wide popularity since 1905, recent trends have started favoring Lorentzian models in light of new discoveries. 1. Recent findings could suggest there in fact is an absolute frame of reference, or aether. One possibility is the microwave background radiation referenced by Con in Round 2. The cosmic microwave background radiation fills all of space and is isotropic for any observer at rest with respect to the expansion of space. It is therefore a sort of aether, serving to distinguish physically a fundamental universal reference frame. Tests have detected earth's motion relative to the radiation background - Smoot, Gorenstein, and Muller discovered that the earth is moving relative to the radiation background with a velocity of 390 60 km/sec in the direction of the constellation Leo [5]. Another candidate is the quantum mechanical vacuum, which is a sea of particles forming by fluctuations of the energy field and returning almost immediately to it that underlies all physical reality. The quantum realm supplies a modern equivalent of the aether in various ways. 2. Einstein's theory is brilliant, but not necessarily correct. The fact that time passes differently in different inertial frames does not at all discount the existence of an "ultimate" frame. In fact, many mathematicians and physicists have exposed problems in many of Einstein's relativity explanations, such as the famous "Train Thought Experiment." [7]. For example, the entire Train Experiment is contingent on assuming an ultimate reference frame when setting the stage by saying "two lightening bolts strike a train at the same time..." In addition, the different observations from the two observers are not necessarily both equally correct. The observer on the train, despite observing one bolt before the other, can calculate the distance he travelled between the two strikes with the speed of light to discover that the bolts, in fact, did strike simultaneously and his reference frame is mistaken. 3. The Lorentzian model is more consistent with what we observe and experience. Indeed, references to time become meaningless and thus debate becomes futile if Einstein/Minkowski are correct. For example, it would be nonsensical to say "the universe is 15 billion year old" or to carbon date a fossil to discover how old it is. Marking anniversaries, celebrating birthdays - all meaningless because the passage of time is merely an illusion. This is simply not how we experience reality, and it would require an extraordinary amount of evidence to overturn our universal intuition. But we don't need an extraordinary amount of evidence to reconcile our experience with the nature of time if we accept the Lorentzian model. Occam's Razor therefore demands we do exactly that, unless Con can provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary. == Rebuttals == Con denies that B Theory time implies that time travel is possible. This is mistaken. Once again, if B Theory time is true, that means the past is an actual, real place, just as real as the present. If this is true, it means it must be, in theory, accessible. If the past is not accessible, that would mean the present somehow holds some trump status over the past, which means all moments in time are not, in fact, equally real and therefore B Theory is wrong. Using the folder analogy, Con says an intelligent being outside the folder is required to make time travel possible, but that misses the point. The mere existence of the papers in B Theory suggest that the past is a real, actual place. As such, it would be possible to go there, even if the technology currently doesn't exist. It's similar to Europeans having no idea North America existed until they developed the appropriate ship technology in 1492 - even though North America was co-existing with it the entire time. This HAS to be the case in B Theory time - all papers are equally real and simultaneously existing. But that is metaphysically impossible, as I mentioned in previously, because it cannot be possible for you to be able to go into the past and kill yourself. Only in A Theory time is the past gone forever and inaccessible, and this is what corresponds closest to reality. I fail to see the relevance of Con's attempted rebuttal to my claim that in B Theory time, we should have future "memories" in addition to past ones. Con says that it's like characters in a familiar book - even though the reader knows what's going to happen, the characters don't. I don't see the connection. If we exist timelessly, as would be the case in B Theory, then there is no reason why we should not know the future. My future is just as real as my past, and I remember my past very well. What property of B Theory time allows timeless beings to only perceive past events but not future ones? It is an absurdity. In addition, the book analogy fails because it depends on an actual passage of time - the reader is reading the book from beginning to end by turning one page at a time. The turning of pages represents the passage of moments, and it must actually happen in order to read the book, which confirms A Theory. Finally, Con again seems to misunderstand B Theory time by saying "What happens within the universe has a cause, for time exists within it." But that's the whole point, in B Theory, time DOESN'T exist - spacetime exists. Things cannot have a cause in B Theory because a cause is, by definition, temporal. A cause must occur BEFORE a result. But in B Theory time, there is no concept of "before." Before implies the passage of time, whish is merely an illusion in B Theory. The only thing that exists in B Theory is sequence (i.e., your birth is always earlier than your death). But sequences do not produce causes - the sun appearing in the east earlier than it appears in the west does not CAUSE the sun to set. So I maintain - in B Theory, there are no causes or effects, and science is destroyed. Remember - we must determine what is MOST LIKELY to be true in this debate. I submit A Theory. [1] https://arxiv.org... [2] http://www.hawking.org.uk... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...(alternative_formulations)#Lorentz_ether_theory [4] https://www.difa3iat.com... [5] Ibid., 29. [6] Ibid. [7]