God Exists

R1) Ontological Argument a) MOA Soundness of S5 modal axiom interpretation Pro merely defends his interpretation of the S5 modal axiom with bare assertions, dropping the fact that it contradicts de Morgan’s laws of Boolean algebra, which takes precedence over modal logic. [1] Furthermore, Pro’s interpretation of the S5 axiom is flawed. The primary axioms of S5 modal logic are the following. [2] “If necessarily (A → B), then necessarily A → necessarily B.” “A is necessarily A.” “If possibly A, then possibly necessarily A.” Now, Pro’s interpretation of S5 would be a Plantingan interpretation, where if A is true in one possible world, i.e. A is possible necessary, then A is true in all possible worlds. [3-4] In other words, if A is possible, A is true. This was subject to a reductio ad absurdum used to demonstrate that a Chimera or Flying Spaghetti Monster is existent, which was dropped by Pro. Thus, via. standard S5 axioms, possibly A is not necessarily A. Epistemic vs. Metaphysical Possibility This argument is entirely dropped. Pro argues against my reverse MOA with the same, but drops the fact that the standard MOA *also* commits the same fallacy, thus is logically fallacious. Reverse MOA Pro argues saying God’s non-existence is metaphysically impossible. This is not justified. The universe can function without God, as God’s existence is not required, if I can refute the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. The *same* logic can prove the non-existence of God [5], thus both cancel out each other and make the Plantingan MOA logically unsound. b) Godel OA Completely dropped by Pro. R2) Cosmological Argument a) Causation is not required I accept the universe could have been caused via. a black hole’s singularity to violate the Conservation of Energy, but that is entirely irrelevant to the first premise. The black hole could be uncaused, or could have ‘popped’ into existence. Pro says “[if it were possible] we would be able to see anything ‘pop’ into existence”, but something emerging into existence or even self-creating via. simultaneous causation does not mean *everything* would simply emerge. However subjectively absurd it may be, it is metaphysically and objectively true. [6-7] Philosopher Quentin Smith writes, “There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.” [8] b) BGV theorem Pro asserts that I dropped his objections to eternalism, but I clearly addressed all objections. Let me quote myself from the last round: “Pro’s refutation of this assumes that the future is non-contingently real and necessary. But for something to be ‘real’, it need not be necessary. The block universe model can advocate for the past, present and future to be contingently real. This completely refutes all Pro’s points regarding this, as Pro assumes a non-contingent reality of the future, which is not a prediction of eternalism.” Furthermore, general and special relativity entail eternalism via. relativity of simultaneity and the Andromeda paradox [9], which “points out that two people walking past each other in the street could have very different present moments. If one of the people were walking towards the Andromeda Galaxy, then events in this galaxy might be hours or even days advanced of the events on Andromeda for the person walking in the other direction. If this occurs, it would have dramatic effects on our understanding of time. Penrose highlighted the consequences by discussing a potential invasion of Earth by aliens living in the Andromeda Galaxy.” [10] Furthermore, I accept the BGV theorem, but not a classical interpretation of spacetime, which is entailed by Pro’s interpretation of the theorem. R3) Teleological Argument As I mentioned, telos is a purely subjective property -- what one might consider ‘well-designed’, another may consider ‘disorderly.’ This would mean a differentiation between telos that is prescribed and which is attributed, and Pro had to prove the former. This was entirely dropped by Pro. Furthermore, I mentioned telos can be generated by anything, however ‘goal-directed’ it is. As mentioned, natural selection can generate goal-directed telos, thus this argument would be entirely irrelevant to the resolution. C1) Non-Cognitivism of Greatness Pro says ontology proves that God is ‘great’, i.e. if God is necessarily existent in all possible worlds, he is ‘great.’ That is a *subjective* assertion of greatness, but the greatness of God has not been objectively demonstrated, thus this argument still stands. C2 and C3: Incoherence of a Caused Universe & Atemporal Minds Unfortunately, Pro has lost their arguments relating to this. I asked him to send me a Google Doc with the arguments, but he said it didn’t matter and to consider them dropped. Thus, I am forced to forward these contentions to this round. C4) Law of Parsimony “We can see that the universe having a maker and creating everything is a lesser assumption than the universe being created out of nothing at some point.” Attributing a quality of one explanation being a “lesser assumption” is subjective and, thus, has no justification for it. I illustrated that theism has three assumptions: the existence of a physical universe with its laws and the existence of God, while a naturalistic explanation only has two assumptions. Thus, Occam’s razor demonstrates that a naturalistic explanation is a priori more likely than a theistic or deistic explanation. Pro asserts I dropped the quote of Stephen Hawking, but I *clearly* mentioned that the quote refutes Pro’s own argument, as he says “a whole universe can [begin to exist without a cause].” [11] Summary & Conclusion a) MOA I illustrated how the MOA only shows God’s existence epistemically, and is based on an incorrect interpretation of S5 modal logic that is easily subject to reductio ad absurdum. b) KCA I refuted P1 and P2, by showing Pro’s interpretation of the BGV theorem is flawed, justifying eternalism and the B-series, and showed that the universe could have come into existence without a cause. c) TA Pro dropped the majority of my points here, where I demonstrated telos is subjective, and Pro equates attributed and prescribed telos, where he should have proven the latter. d) Greatness Virtually dropped my rebuttals to this, as Pro’s interpretation of greatness is subjective. e) and f) Incoherence of Causation & Atemporal Minds Unfortunately, these arguments were dropped by Pro. g) Occam’s razor I justified clearly that the abduction of metaphysical naturalism is simpler than deism or theism. Thus, vote Con. Pro must waive the next round. I thank @lannan for an invigorating debate. 1. http://capone.mtsu.edu... 2. http://bit.ly...; 3. Ibid. 4. http://plato.stanford.edu... 5. http://wiki.ironchariots.org... 6. http://www.astrosociety.org... 7. http://infidels.org... 8. Ibid. 9. Roger Penrose (1999). The Emperor’s New Mind. p. 393. Oxford University Press. 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. p. 180. Bantam Books.