Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

Thanks for your 2nd round Pro.Pro attempted to affirm most of his burden.There were no explicit rules for rounds, so I'll just start refuting Pro.*The Origin of the Universe*Pro explains that cosmic inflation is a fact, that the universe cannot be infinite in the past, that the universe has a beginning singularity, and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies on the quantum level.So?What does any of that have to do with whether or not science justifies believing in a personal universe creator?It's great that Pro gave a quasi-accurate rendition of science's current understanding on the properties and characteristics of the universe, but Pro makes no attempt to show how this exclusively indicates a justified belief in a personal creator behind the origin of the universe.Pro just shows that science explains a beginning to all existing space and matter, sans any mention of god.Pro also makes no attempt to show how creation, a temporal (time-based) process, could have occurred without time, time being a property Pro admits originated *with* the universe given Pro's explanation of inflation via Alan Guth and friends.*A Finely-Tuned Universe*I've always particularly hated this argument, because it's such an after-the-fact, naively human-centered, begging-the-question conclusion about how the universe works.People who use this argument are all like:"Hey things function well, therefore all things must have been planned in the way that I, as a human, would plan them, and I should call it tuning to smuggle in an intelligent tuner behind it all and then I can retrofit scientific evidence."Pro claims:"Researchers have demonstrated...that the fundamental constants in physics remained fixed over the history of the universe...astronomers have confirmed the constancy of the physical laws to the entire geographical extent of the universe..."My response:Now, you may have noticed that Pro used a source for this [Pro Source #5] that's not linkable, so I found a link to it.http://iopscience.iop.org...What Pro tried to do here is sneak one passed the readers, but I found the author's actual published work on this particular matter and Pro was being slightly dishonest.The author clearly explains that "we find no sign of spatial variations in the fine-structure constant."BUT.The author also clearly explains that the fine-structure constant is just "one possible variation" and that "physical constants vary across space and time in the history of the universe."So, even though Pro's source shows that there is no *spatial* variations within the fine-structure constant, it speaks not to other types of variations or the other constants.Therefore, Pro saying "astronomers have confirmed the constancy of the physical laws to the entire geographical extent of the universe" is a gross overstatement.No spatial variations =/= no variations.Fine-structure constant =/= all constants.So, Pro cannot say that their personal creator god "maintained their values from the beginning."The only value shown to be maintained is the spatial variability of the fine-structure constant, no other variability, and no other constants.But, it hasn't even been shown that some intelligence has been maintaining it, it simply shows what a constant is...unchanging.*The God Hypothesis*Pro attempts to show that god is a mind, because only a mind can be a cause that can interact to create a simultaneous effect while being immaterial and outside of space time.There are 3 problems with this.1. Minds are contingent on brains; the mind is a construct that represents the inner workings of the brain.2. Since minds are contingent on the brain, and the brain is made of particles/material, they are not immaterial.3. Being that minds are contingent on the material, existent-in-time-and-space brain, the mind is not outside of spacetime.Pro also uses another source that is unlinkable, but guess what?I found it.Pro's source #6 can be found here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Pro claims:"experiments in neuroscience have demonstrated that humans do not experience only one interval of time, but a second space-time dimension."My response:Ok, so check the link yourself, and see if you can find ANY mention of a second space-time dimension.Seriously, use the word search tool on your browser and see any mention of it.It's not there, and instead, what you read is quite clear.People experience perceived time dilation given certain stimuli."perceived durations can be distorted by saccades, by an oddball in a sequence, or by stimulus complexity or magnitude...the confederacy of recently discovered illusions points to the underlying neural mechanisms of time perception."NOTHING in there mentioned anything about a second interval of time...nothing,This is just Pro hoping that no one will check up on his unlinked sources, so he can smuggle in crap like "the mind is in some other time dimension."So I reject the rest of Pro's god hypothesis, because it's based on a faulty premise that the mind is somehow immaterial and not a property of the physical brain.The mind is a physical thing because it's contingent on the physical brain, so it's not immaterial, transcendent, or outside of spacetime.Pro just kind of continues to assert that there's this "second space-time dimension," but I assure you, none of his sources even mention that, and Pro never provided any reason to accept another time dimension.*OmniPotent, OmniScient, OmniPresent*Pro takes the "Theory of Everything" model which attempts to join the theory of general relativity with quantum gravity and attempts to use the theory to show an all powerful, all knowing bla bla bla.But Pro's source that he claims, "is a model provided by scientists that merges both classical and quantum models of the universe into a "Theory of Everything" has no such thing in it...see for yourself.https://www.researchgate.net...What you do find is the researchers mentioning a lot about duality and phase space gauge symmetry, none of which complete the theory of everything or even come close to indicating an omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence.So when Pro says "thus, [Pro's source's data] suggests that the cause is a all-knowing, all-powerful universal mind" one can dismiss this because it is false and nowhere in Pro's intentionally unlinked sources.See for yourself.*Eternal, Personal, Necessary*Pro links the universe allowing for life with a personal entity.That's really all Pro did here.Pro asserts that the values were chosen, but in no way attempts to explain how this is the case beyond his assertion.Pro has given no reason to think that the right values could only occur if they were chosen that way.In fact, all of the sources that Pro used in his 2nd round indicate naturally occurring phenomena without any indication of any intelligence behind any of the phenomena presented.Why is that?*Creation Is Temporal*Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.See for yourself:creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...process - a SERIES of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...series - a number of events of a related kind coming one AFTER another.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...after - in the TIME following an event.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...This means that creation is inherently time-based.Going from creator-->created product is therefore temporal.This also means that creators necessarily use a time-based process to bring about their creations.*Precedence Is Temporal*Creators not only use a time-based process consisting of one event after another, they also necessarily precede their creations.The process of creator existing-->creating-->created product can only be described if and only if the creator comes before, or precedes, its creation. Well, before (precedence) is another temporal or time-based concept.How could a creator precede its creation without time?before - during the period of TIME preceding.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Pro, can you distinguish between a creator and its created product without using time or temporal concepts?I argue that without time, one cannot tell the difference between a creator and its created product; one wouldn't be able to tell if creation has occurred because there would be no precedence.*No Creator of the Universe*So, when there was no time, there could not have been creation, because creation is necessarily temporal and so is precedence.This also means that the universe wasn't created, because spacetime began at the universe's origin.Unfortunately for god, in this debate, a creator of the universe doesn't exist, because the time required for such a process, creation, originates with the space of the universe which wasn't there without the universe.No space, no time, no creation, no creator of the universe, no god in this debate.Next round I will also attack the contradictions of Omnipotence and continue refuting Pro.