It is probable that God exists

Cosmological argument Pro starts with the cosmological argument. However, the argument assumes a certain theory of time. It assumes many of the A theories of time. Under the B theory and moving spotlight theory the universe does not become actual at the big bang. This is because all states of time exist. The definition of begins to exist is e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. [1] The B theory and MST do not fit. The obvious question is, do theories of time hold weight. Experiments in quantum mechanics demonstrate that they do. Experiments show entangled particles can be entangled through time [2]. They can be affected by the past. If the present can affect the past and the future can affect the present, they must all exist. Experiments also show time is an internal phenomenon. An external observer would see all states of time [3]. We can further rule out theories of time that claim only one or two states of time exist Modality. Time travel is conceivable and thus possible. Every episode of Quantum Leap proves that. However, the theories of time which the cosmological argument are based on rule out time travel. Time travel would be impossible in the actual world of the CA was true. Since time travel is possible, the CA fails. Furthermore, there are many multiple alternative explanations for the universe's existence. The universes could have been the result of an uncaused quantum tunneling event [4]. Since retrocausality has been demonstrated as a real phenomenon, the universe could have been born that way. It could have been born in the way of simultaneous causation. For example, atoms A,B, and C come into existence at the same time. Atom A, causes B, B causes C and C causes A all simultaneously. This makes it possible for there to be things coming into existence with a cause, but the cause can still be internal. It could be just some force that has almost all the same properties as God, but not sentient. The point is, there’s tons of ways to explain the creation of the universe without referring to God. Pro needs to prove God is more probable than all these. In fact, I’d say we should accept these naturalist causes since they assume less. The argument is refuted. TAG Pro gives us a very slightly modified version of Matt Slick’s TAG. Technically this is “Aggregator” plagiarism [5] as it contains citations but almost no original work. I will say no more on this and will leave this up to the voters to decide what to do. Anyway, I’d say atheists can account for the laws of logic. They are descriptions of the very nature of the thing itself. Its nature reflects the logical laws. Existence itself is existence (a=a) it cannot be existence and nonexistence. It seems even nonexistence contains these descriptions. It is still a=a. This means even if there were no God, there can still be logical laws. Furthermore, if nonexistence contained no logical laws, then there is no reason why logical laws couldn’t form. If they couldn’t then they would have to already have logical laws existing. Pro tries to prove God is responsible for the laws because they’re thoughts and thoughts obviously reflect a mind. Even if I were to assume these laws are indeed thoughts, it is a fallacy of composition to conclude they’re from a mind. Human thoughts reflect a mind, but “transcendental” thoughts are completely different from human thoughts. We can’t instantly know a human thought but with a transcendental thought we can just look around. We can go on and on about the differences. This means it has not been demonstrated that God is the author of these laws. Mt. Sinai This argument begs the question and affirms the consequent. It assumes the Torah is true to demonstrate its truth. There is no reason to assume these events actually happened. This argument is similar to claiming because the Bible says people saw Jesus came back from the dead, he did. It affirms the consequent because God talking to people isn’t the only way for people to maintain belief. If it was, just about every religion out there would be true. Furthermore, why think it’s more probable that God spoke to the Jews than something like say aliens. It’s silly, but why think this argument proves God? Aliens are a simpler explanation. This is just citing an effect and asserting the cause by the effect. This doesn’t demonstrate the cause. Now to Pro. [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] https://medium.com... [4] http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org... [5] http://www.plagiarism.org...