Science has rendered theism unreasonable

Rendering Theism ‘Unreasonable’ In this debate I am here to demonstrate one or both of the following: 1. Belief in a God with “supernatural power over nature/human fortunes” is unreasonable 2. Belief in a God as the creator of the universe is unreasonable I do not have to demonstrate each and every possible way that God could have created the universe is impossible in order to demonstrate belief that God did them is unreasonable, which seems to be the tac that Con is taking in this debate. Even if I demonstrate agnosticism, it still renders theism unreasonable (as it’s a posivie belief) Universe Does Not Require God Con misunderstands the term ’possible’ in modal logic, which refers explicitly to objective, metaphysical possibility (entails a logically consistent world exists for the proposition). This is very different from epistemic possibility, which is simply a case of ‘for all I know X is true’, and says nothing about whether it’s metaphysical, let alone physical possibility.[5] This is where the argument provides an enormous advantage in affirming atheism over theism, because the P1 for my modal argument is very likely to be true, because: 1. Physical laws objectively exist 2. The physical laws that objectively exist will inevitably yield our world (which I have affirmed so far scientifically) Both are important because: “Natural creation is metaphysically possible if and only if natural processes that allow for it actually exist” The exact same consideration applies to theism “Supernatural creation is metaphysically possible if and only if supernatural processes (God) that allow for it actually exist” Now the problem is very obvious, while science readily affirms the former (and hence supports my premise), it clearly does not support the latter (and thus Pro’s P1 is unsound). Ergo the premise: “P2. Spontaneous natural creation of the universe is possible” Is significantly more likely to be true than: “P1. Supernatural creation of the universe is possible” And in fact is the only one that is and can be supported by science. To give an everyday example, if I drop a pen, it will fall. There are 2 possibilities (for sake of argument) for the causation of this falling pen: 1. Gravity 2. Some putative supernatural force If we were in ignorance of gravity’s existence, perhaps is would be somewhat reasonable to consider the second option, but we so know gravity objectively exists, and provides the effects that we observe and measure. Therefore to postulate the redundant explanation without good reason to think it objectively exists is unreasonable. For similar reasons we cannot reasonably attribute lightning, and tsunamis etc. to supernatural explanations especially now that we have natural explanations for these, although we used to hold such beliefs. This speaks nothing to whether or not belief in supernatural explanations I reasonable in the first place. Furthermore, Con concedes both premises of my argument, and hence the conclusion logically follows: “C. God is unnecessary” The Universe Lacks A Cause I think Con muddles up A-Theory of time with B-Theory of time, indeed it is A-Theory of time that must be true in order for the universe to be caused, in any case I think Con’s points are the same regardless so no credit is lost either way. I apologise for giving the wrong reference for the WLC quote.[1] I quoted WLC because he readily concedes this point despite being one of the most major proponents of the related cosmological argument. I already gave the justification within the quote which Con has not responded to (despite the source of the quote, the points within it stand on their own merits). If the A-Theory of time is false then that precludes the universe having a cause, and in fact renders such a question meaningless, since the universe would necessarily be contained by time, and time contained by the universe, they are synonymous. The universe would be entirely self-contained, and would have never ‘come into existence’, since it exists fully developed as a tenseless four-dimensional block-universe, there would be nothing to explain about the universe anymore as it ‘just is’, for similar arguments that theists posit for God ‘just being’, with no beginning or end so much as a football has a beginning or end. At not point did the universe ever ‘not exist’. Pro objection that this precludes all causes is false, because it doesn’t conclude what happens within the universe is uncaused, indeed we have both time and entropy, the two things we need to make meaningful statements about causation within the universe, but we don’t have those conditions ‘outside’ the universe. “If the universe exists as a tenseless four-dimensional block then God could not (and therefore did not) create it.” Pro has not objected to my refutation of the A-Series of time in any way, nor has he challenged the conclusion of the state of the universe hence at the very least the uncaused universe has been established in this debate. Note that when I state the laws of QM allow for “spaces” and “times” to bubble and spontaneously appear, however this objection comes from the limitations of the language used to describe what is ‘happening’. In the ‘quantum vacuum’, there exists a multitude of ‘possibilities’ before observation which collapses onto a single possibility after. There are several interpretations of what is happening, the simplistic Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds/Everett Interpretation. Sean Carroll explains: “..in quantum mechanics, they’re (the possible worlds) right here, but in different possibility spaces (i.e. different parts of Hilbert space, if you want to get technical).“[3] There is no ‘causal force’ or ‘influencing factor’ which causes these bubbles to appear, the bubbles just ‘exist’ as-is in the quantum vacuum (as ‘false vacuum’ pockets), uncreated, and only resolved once observed, as all possibilities ‘exist’ in a sense, especially in the many worlds interpretation. Con seems to claim this demonstrates that space-time is caused by this underlying stuff, and hence is compatible with theism, but this is just false. Given that the quantum vacuum is not contingent on time, it itself is eternal, it was never caused, and very arguably negates any necessary being ‘causing the universe because: 1. So say the quantum vacuum as ‘caused’ is an incoherent statement 2. Self-contained models of it exists, which do not require external ‘causation’ or ‘contingency’ Logically conceivable worlds that are entirely self-contained are imaginable. Despite them not being our world they demonstrate that such worlds can exist without requirement of any external causation, and they ‘just are’.[2] Quantum Eternity Theorem If Pro is affirming that God created the laws of nature (which is dubious, because we have no reason to believe they are not fundamental), then he concedes this debate, since he concedes that God did not create the universe, as it’s by the laws of physics, and not God that everything in the universe came to be. Moreover the laws of physics, and especially quantum mechanics are indeterminate, and don’t produce determined results (such as THIS universe), hence this defence is a case of Con shooting himself in the foot, since the act of God creating the universe heavily implies a determined outcome. While it is taken out of context, the spirit of Einstein’s Quote is the same: “God does not play dice with the universe” – Albert Einstein To assert that God (a being with free will) created a mechanism which randomly popped out a rather random universe, in terms of its attributes, sublaws, etc is prima facie absurd. Yet that is exactly what our physics appears to show us. Moreover Pro asserts some creatio continuans doctrine but doesn’t actually provide an argument, the only thing I find on this is that God is some ‘sustaining’ role in the universe, which is irrelevant to the creation of the universe (which is what I am arguing against in theism). God can not interact with the Universe Con pretty much ignored this argument, the standard model mandates force carriers in order for particles to interact, its for similar reasons why substance dualism is rejected by philosophers of mind, in order for anything to happen they must interact. From painstaking observation of the natural world we have comprehensively found the required mechanism by which things interact, and that is via. force carriers. This model-building would be impossible were supernatural interaction possible, and was actually occurring, since we would have unexplained anomalies all over the place appearing in our particle accelerators, and the data would not fit the standard model at all. The theistic claim is that God interacts with nature somehow, yet our physics shows he cannot. To formalize: P1. If non-natural interaction occurs, then fully natural models would never fully explain particle accelerator observations P2. Fully natural models explain particle accelerator observations C. Non-natural interaction does not occur One good reason to accept P2 is that when searching for the Higg’s boson, it was only possible because we have modelled the interactions of particles, and what forms at certain energies with first-principle physics so well, that we were looking for a million-in-one discrepancy to fit the Higg’s boson, and we found exactly that.[4] For P1, we would always have interference from supernatural stuff (whether it be God or something else non-natural), and would ironically be an effective method by which God would let us know of his existence if we did observe these anomalies spontaneously/intermittently appearing etc. Final Word I thank Jellon for an most interesting debate, I really wish we had another round, ah well. Best of luck in the voting! References 1. http://tinyurl.com... p.184 2. http://tinyurl.com... 10:00 – 11:00 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...