God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Burden of Proof Im saying the Burden of Proof is unofficially stated before this debate even started. Even though Con might of not said something in the debate there's a automatic thing Con says before i do. The thing he says is "I believe god exists" and I am simply rejecting his claim in saying that God most likely does not exist now if i said "God does not exist" then the burden of proof would be shared in fact i might have the full burden of proof but i didn't say that. My claim would not exist if the proposition that god exists did not exist. So for my statement that "God most likely does not exists" there must be a statement around like "God exists" in order for the debate topic to exist. So Con needs to show why my disbelief in god is irrational but i will say that i will show evidence on why i rejected the proposition that god exists. Beginning of the Universe Con asserts that He is not committing the God of the gaps fallacy when after he says that he commits the very same fallacy. Con needs to show why those are the requirements for creating the universe 1. All powerful 2. Outside of space and time 3. Transcendent We simply don't know enough about the beginning of the universe to make any claim about it. We do have some ideas which i mention but we don't have a theory of the beginning. So instead of taking the approach that is honest which is we simply don't know Con asserts God into the gaps of science. BigBang =/= A Beginning Just because there was a expansion of space in time in a theory called inflation http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com... http://www.space.com... That does not mean that there was a beginning. Our concept of time brakes down so much at the Planck epoch that the concept of a beginning don't make any sense at all. In fact as i pointed out a lot of physicists are bringing up ideas showing that our universe did not have a beginning but instead of so small that time and beginning start to not make sense http://earthsky.org... http://www.livescience.com... In fact even if we stick with the model that most scientist's use for the big bang this does mean that there was a absolute beginning, What they say is that the universe came about in a inflation from a singularity where time was infinite so the entire premise that the universe had a beginning does not make sense. http://science.nasa.gov... http://www.space.com... Multiverse and other explanations Let's grant that the universe did have a beginning, I have argued that even if it did inserting god is committing a logical fallacy and is scientific unprovable so i brought up some ideas that scientists have used to try to explain the orgin of the universe. 1. The Multiverse does not have a lot of empirical evidence yet but it does (Unlike God) have reason to be provable and i can show some reasons we can prove the mutiverse http://www.space.com... http://www.space.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com... For Example they have proven what they call "Gravitational waves" which is a sliver bullet proof of inflation which i explained is what scientist's use when describing on how the universe came into being and when inflation is true that means that the possible of a multiverse now has some evidence to back it up. Now God on the other hand does not have any evidence and Con says that he does but does not bring it up any (Empirical scientific proof) 2. If you want me to spell out a entire theory of science in a few words, Well i'll try my best. Though to get a better depth on how the universe created itself from nothing i suggest voters check out the links i sent and Lawrence krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing" and his lectures on his book. In Short "Nothing" is not what we think it is, It might go against common sense to think nothing is something else but we must change our beliefs to align with reality. Nothing is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, This is true because even at subatomic level we have seen matter and energy out of nothing. So as i said we don't have a theory on how the universe started but scientists are getting better and better data to figure out how the universe started http://www.livescience.com... http://phys.org... Nothing is a topic that goes beyond our common understanding. And we should face the facts that nothing isn't nothing and that this nothing could of created the universe without any form of divine intervention. We will march forward and soon and maybe within our lifetimes we will be able to create a theory of the beginning that fully explains the facts that we are collecting at this very moment and figure out how the big bang started and how the laws of physics came about. What about God? If Con apply's his logic that everything needs to have a cause then god needs to have a cause. However there is a law of causality in our universe this does not apply outside our universe and which is why it does not make sense to use it as a argument to how the universe began since the universe did not exist then. If god did have a cause then what caused that cause? so then you have a infinite regression. Fine Tuning My Argument that the fine tuning is a result of chance has not been refuted yet by Con. He says that saying that it just happened this way out of all the other ways does not count. However if the universe say ended up another way and say let the existence of fire monsters come about and these fire monsters thought, Well i exist in this universe therefore this universe was designed for me!!. When in reality that universe was the way it is. Life evolves with the environment not the other way around, proof of this is found in evolution where life that can survive in its environment survive and the ones that cant don't survive so its no surprise that animals can survive on earth. I also showed how the multiverse might exist and that will explain the fine tuning by saying that we just exist in one of the universes that permit our existence. I will also bring out the puddle analogy , Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn"t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it"s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything"s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. If the universe weren"t fine-tuned, we wouldn"t be here to observe it. So we shouldn"t be surprised by fine-tuning. Morality Con saying that animals don't have morality is completely false, Research in chimps have shown that in social conditions some of these chimps will sacrifice some of there own freedom in order to maintain a good social order in order to raise there young better. and Piranhas who's main goal is to eat other prey in groups but notice how they don't eat eachother. That's because they don't use there killer instinct when eating there fellow piranha because they want to survive as a group http://www.patheos.com... Also the reason why we help other people is because we have a emotion called empathy which gives us beneficial chemicals in our brain that make us feel better and we evolved empathy in order to find a better way to interact with our species, If caring for the feelings of other humans is something that makes us humans than psychopaths should not be human but we know that psychopaths simply don't have empathy and we can measure this by looking at there brains and see how there is a difference between a psychopaths brain and a regular persons brain and we know simply that the reason why people have varying amounts of compassion is because of their brain chemistry and those that have none are known to be psychopaths and as a social species we prefer humans who have empathy because those emphatic people tend to help other human beings and thus increase the survival ability of the whole group and thus in turn they help that individual out. https://www.psychologytoday.com... Morality however is subjective and is ever changing throughout the times we see this if we look back at history and how we have our own personal options on certain subjects. However we see no evidence of "Objective Morality" and thus we can conclude that god does not exist because objective morality does not exist However if morality came from god then it fails to account for the euthyphro dilemma which the question goes like this "Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?" Rather there morally good cause god just made them up or there good independent of god and then the whole notion of objective morality falls apart this video sums it up pretty well Also Even if god was the source of all morality then it does not explain the evil things he does in the bible and when he sends people to hell, http://www.alternet.org...