Tejretics v. Lannan13, Resolved: God Exists

Rebuttals 1. Ontological Argument How is it directly taken that it is possible that a “maximally great” being exists? Here, let us assume that “maximally great” refers to this debate’s definition of God: “the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being.” How can it be directly assumed that it is possible? Since Pro has full BoP, Pro must prove that it is possible. My next rebuttal concerns the application of ontology to the inverse. Hypothetically, let us consider this: P1: It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist. P2: Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist in some world. P3: Existence is certain; i.e. if anything X exists in, say, Pakistan, you cannot say X does not exist in the United States; it exists in the United States because the simple fact is that it exists (i.e. it has being). If it exists, then it exists everywhere while not being present everywhere. Existence everywhere is not ubiquity.1 P4: From P3, therefore, a maximally great being does not exist. Thus, the ontological argument is invalid and void for two primary reasons – the reverse application of ontology and P1 not being proved. 2. Kalam Cosmological Argument Pro says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The proper statement is energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Now, let me show you how the Big Bang would be possible via quantum fluctuations. Energy can be produced by random, uncaused quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are ripples across inherently existent gravity (gravity is always uncaused) that produce energy strong enough to concentrate into a gravitational singularity that begins to radiate energy as Hawking radiation.2 In further explanation of this, let me illustrate the function of quantum fluctuations. due to the possibility of uncaused quantum fluctuations2, there need not be a personal cause for the Big Bang.3 If there need not be a personal cause to the Big Bang, with a lack of evidence for a personal cause, we can discredit a personal cause entirely. I will show how there can be uncaused quantum mechanical fluctuations. What are quantum fluctuations? In classical physics, energy is conserved, i.e. it can neither be created nor destroyed.4 Therefore, it would seem that the sudden appearance of energy, as required by the Big Bang model, would violate the conservation of energy. However, physicists think the uncertainty principle offers a way around this problem.5 There is a formulaic interpretation of the uncertainty principle. Let ΔE represent the uncertainty in the amount of energy andW10;t represent the uncertainty in the time. Then the product ΔEW10;t is approximately equal to ħ, where ħ = h/2π, and h is Planck’s constant. Planck’s constant has the value 6.62606957 x 10-34 Joule-second.6 Planck’s constant has the appropriate units of energy and time (Joule, second). Planck’s constant is small, so the uncertainties are vanishingly small on a macroscopic scale.7 That is why the uncertainty principle is not observable in the macroscopic world. On the scale of subatomic particles, the uncertainties can be large compared to the quantities involved, so the consequences of the uncertainty principle can be significant on the microscopic scale. This is the effect of a quantum fluctuation. These fluctuations are caused randomly, released from the quantum vacuum.8 Explained in a simpler manner, a quantum fluctuation is a change in the amount of energy in a point of space originating in the quantum vacuum. These fluctuations generally affect thermodynamic systems.9 Since the change originates in the preexistent quantum vacuum (with minuscule amounts of uncaused measurable energy), the fluctuations need not be triggered by a personal cause and perfectly explains the Big Bang. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band.10 CMB radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions. The surface of last scattering corresponding to emission of the CMB occurs shortly after recombination, the epoch when neutral hydrogen becomes stable. Prior to this, the universe comprised a hot dense photon-baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles. In October 2014, a measurement of the B-mode polarization, signals of primordial gravitational waves, at a frequency of 150 GHz, was published by the POLARBEAR experiment. 11 Models of cosmic inflation predict that such primordial gravitational waves should appear. Primordial gravitational waves are the result of three things: inflationary expansion of space itself, reheating after inflation, and turbulent fluid mixing of matter and radiation. 12 Proof of inflation is proof of the emergence of the universe from a singularity, a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume, created from the energy inherent to gravity.13 14 Let me also present some rebuttals for some possible questions relating to this argument. 1. Quantum mechanics implicitly assumes the existence of space and time, so how can the laws of quantum mechanics create space and time? -> The quantum vacuum, with a finite, measurable amount of energy, remains permanently existent and is, in terms of particle physics, practically “eternal”. Hence, space and time can emerge from an abstract fluctuation that is eternal. 2. What is the origin of the laws of physics? -> The laws of physics do not need an origin; they are random limitations caused by the Higgs field. Any change in the density of energy in the Higgs field will result in a change of the laws of physics. 3. How can energy exist without the universe? -> Gravity is permanently existent, according to recent research. The energy inherent to gravity created the universe from the quantum vacuum, that is essentially “nothing”. The quantum vacuum is preexistent without origin. 3. Thomistic TA My first rebuttal is the dysteleological argument, the opposite of the TA, used to disprove God: P1: A maximally great, benevolent being would create objects/beings with optimal design. P2: Objects and beings do not have optimal design. P3: Therefore, God did not create the universe or is not maximally great and benevolent.15 The perceived “teleology” of the universe is actually because of randomness. The universe was created due to the emergence of minuscule disorder; the disorder of the universe results in random emergence of teleology and dysteleology. Disorder is measured as entropy and governs the creation and destruction of the universe. By the second law of thermodynamics, time is rate of entropic graduation.16 Arguments & Conclusion Occam’s Razor The Occam’s Razor principle states, “If an object or being X that is not acceptable to the general understanding of nature need not exist and its doings can be explained by something compatible with the general understanding of nature, then X most likely does not exist.”17 The creation of the universe has been explained. Therefore, God, most likely does not exist. As the BoP is on Pro, Pro must rebut this with proof. Also, how do you prove the only thing that could have created the universe is God? References [1] Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York. (1988) ISBN-978-0-553-10953-5. [2] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2010). ISBN-0-553-80537-1. [3] Faulkner, Danny R. "Quantum Fluctuations May Kill Big Bang Evangelism." Answers in Genesis. (http://www.answersingenesis.org...) [4] Empedocles (490-430 BCE), et al. [5] Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German) 43 (3–4): 172–198 [6] P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, and D.B. Newell (2011), "The 2010 CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants." (http://www.physics.nist.gov...) [7] Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A 67 (4): 42105 [8] Browne, Malcolm W. (1990-08-21). "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time". The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com...)[9] Mandelshtam, Leonid; Tamm, Igor (1945), "The uncertainty relation between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics", Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR (ser. Fiz.) 9: 122–128. English translation: J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249–254 (1945). [10] Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.” Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.[11] The Polarbear Collaboration (October 2014). “A Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background B-Mode Polarization Power Spectrum at Sub-Degree Scales with POLARBEAR” (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal. (http://iopscience.iop.org...) [12] http://www.insidescience.org... [13] Moulay, Emmanuel. “The universe and photons”. FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (http://fqxi.org...)[14] Hawking, Stephen. “The Beginning of Time”. Stephen Hawking: The Official Website. Cambridge University.(http://www.hawking.org.uk...) [15] Boyd, Gregory A. (1997) God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. IVP Academic, Downer’s Grove, Illinois. ISBN 978-0-830-81885-3. [16] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57. [17] "Simplicity." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu...