God exists

So, to begin rebuttal: Firstly, the argument from fine-tuning. There are several objections to this: First, it is quite possible that all of the fundamental constants of the universe could be defined in terms of one another- that, while many numbers seem to have landed "just right" for life, this result was inevitable due to the nature of the relationships between fundamental constants. Such an idea is called a "theory of everything" [see source 8] or a "grand unified theory", and though we haven't yet completed one, physicists are making progress towards this in general relativity and quantum theory. This would explain that the universe was hospitable to life as a necessity, demanded by the relationships between the fundamental constants. One such relationship is that the square of the speed of light is equal to the reciprocal of the product of the permittivity of free space with the permeability of free space [see source 9]. Secondly, cyclical universe hypotheses [sources 10 & 11], and multiverse hypotheses [sources 12 & 13], both make the odds seem less stacked against chance. Both would allow for many universes, each with their own fundamental constants, to exist. It could well be that in the vast majority of universes, there is no life, but, as life, we necessarily exist in one which has life. The addition of multiple universes makes chance a very plausible explanation, given that enough repeats of an experiment will eventually produce unusual results- if you toss a coin enough times, eventually you'll get a million "heads" in a row. Thirdly, the fine-tuning argument smacks itself in the face in that can be used to dismiss itself. If we grant that it is indeed the case that the only explanations for something unlikely happening are chance, necessity, or design, then we can apply this to God: if God exists, his existence must be explained by chance, necessity, or design. It is overwhelmingly less likely that God would come into existence by chance than that the universe would, given that God is so much more powerful, complex, and in all ways incredible. My opponent has not explained that God's existence is necessary, and I'd like to see them do so. If they intend to simply assert that God is necessary without a supporting argument, then we may as well assert that the universe is necessary without providing a supporting argument. At this point, Occam's razor takes over as it favours the latter. If God is designed, we've just pushed the problem back a step- we'd have to explain God's designer in much the same way. So, to recap my rebuttal, a theory of everything would provide a reason why a universe with life in it is necessary, and multiverse and cyclical universe theories would provide an explanation of how the universe could be hospitable to life by chance. Most importantly, though, the fine-tuning argument's premises, when applied to God, show that we've only compounded the problem in that we now have to justify the necessity or chance existence of a God, rather than of a universe with life in. Next, the ontological argument: P1) is flawed: As I argued in R2, an omnimaximal being produces paradoxes which cannot be resolved in a consistent way. P3) is a simple non-sequitir [See source 15]. Where did that come from? "it is greater and to a fuller extent to exist in all possible worlds (necessary) rather than to exist in some possible world (contingent)." Why? Is not a dragon greater than a goat, despite the former being nonexistent? There are many things which only exist as possibilities which are far greater than many things which exist in our world (as anything that exists in all possible worlds must). Consider an analogous argument: P1) My hamster is the nicest pet. P2) It is nicer to be alive than to be dead. P3) Therefore, my hamster cannot die. The argument arbitrarily declares God/my hamster as the greatest/nicest being, and then arbitrarily declares that existence/being alive is greater/nicer than the alternative. The argument starts from nonsense, and produces nonsense. At best, we've deduced that the greatest thing which exists exists, or that the nicest thing which lives, lives. Pro also arbitrarily declared that God is a necessary being- that is to say, that he necessarily exists. However, this was not substantiated, and so may be dismissed. Kalam: The Kalam argument tries to apply conventional, macroscopic causality to the origins of the universe- which needn't obey it. The universe regularly violates our understanding of causality, and this is shown in Causality Violation and Nonlinear Quantum Mechanics [Source 16] , and countless other scientific texts [see sources 17:19]. I recognise that this is very high reading and that not everyone has a degree in physics, but this is perhaps the most convincing refutation of Kalam if you can follow it: the universe's origin doesn't have to obey causality, as things violate our understanding of causality all the time- they just tend to be very small things (like particles) that do so. If you can't follow this, there is also another explanation- cyclical universe hypotheses allow the universe to exist without violating classical causality. Given that there are a finite number of ways to arrange all the stuff in the universe, and that time could conceivably extend forever, eventually the universe must reach a state in which it has already been- completely identical in every way to what it was before. Such a system will behave exactly as it did before- it repeats itself indefinitely. Superficially, Chaos theory [source 20] appears to forbid this, but on closer inspection it doesn't: chaos theory states that extremely minuscule changes in a situation can lead to radically different outcomes, but we're talking about a system in which everything is *exactly* the same, due to the finite- although extremely large- number of ways to arrange everything in the universe, and the infinite amount of time to rearrange them. This repeating system allows the universe to exist forever- the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time and will continue to exist for an infinitely longer time- it doesn't need to be caused to exist because there was never a point in time in which it did not exist. So, the universe doesn't have to obey classical, macroscopic causality, but even if it did, cyclical universe hypotheses would allow it to create itself without violating such. Pro's understanding of thermodynamics is flawed, and I will expand on this further in R4. Pro mentions Hell- we could easily have another debate this long about the existence of Hell, so Pro ought not to assume its existence axiomatically. "God can create a boulder as heavy as comprehensibly possible and he would still be able to lift it." So, if God could not create a boulder heavier than that one (as would be required for it to be too heavy to lift) as said boulder is "as heavy as comprehensibly possible", then he cannot create said boulder. There is something he cannot do- he is not omnipotent. "No he can not know anything new because he knows everything." Hence, he is not omnipotent as there is something he cannot do (learn something new), and hence he is not omnimaximal, and hence he is not God. "God is everywhere" So there is nowhere he hasn't been. Thus, he can't go anywhere he has never been. Thus, there is something he cannot do, and he is not omnipotent, and therefore, not God. Omnimaximality is still inherently paradoxical, and as such an omnimaximal being cannot exist. I will respond to my opponent's first R3 paragraph in R4, as I have a lot to say and not enough characters left to say it. With that, I wrap up my R3 speech. Sources: [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [9]: https://www.google.co.uk...: [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [11]: https://www.accessscience.com... [12}: https://en.wikipedia.org... [13]: http://discovermagazine.com... [14]: http://math.ucr.edu... [15]: https://www.google.co.uk... [16]: https://arxiv.org... [17]: https://phys.org... [18]: https://www.physics.utoronto.ca... [19]: http://astro.kent.ac.uk... [20]: http://fractalfoundation.org...