Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

1. "Seriously, Pro, if you consider the beginning of the universe to be a quantum origin and you're arguing that it was simultaneously caused, then how do you discern between creator and created product without the passage of time?" Simple, I provided support in round 2 for a immaterial mind that can create material effects within classical physics (i.e. created product) while "simulataneously" operating in a immaterial spaceless timeless dimension (i.e. creator). For example, the Kochen-Specker thereom experiment demonstrated that the outcome of observed reality depends on the measurements at the time and cannot be predicted or determined prior to that [1]. In other words, what we percieve as reality now depends on our earlier decision of what to measure. Furthermore, quantum physics proves that prior to observation or measurement objects do not have defined properties or location. Instead, the act of a conscious observer creates the existence of the physical objects and the properties they entail instantly. The first moment of the big bang and quantum fluctuations of particles that emerge out of a quantum mechanical universal wave-function are great examples of what I am talking about. Therefore, when Con suggested that the mind is in "Time", he is mistaken. It is the mind's effects that are within "Time" and can be measured, but the conscious mind itself exist in a different or second space-time dimension. For Con to suggest otherwise, he would need to provide empirical support within neuroscience showing how there is an area within the brain that causes a person to make decisions with the usage of electrical stimulation. Nevertheless, CON suggested that I have not met my BOP in showing the existence of a second space-time dimension and/or digital information, which is needed to prove that the mind has causal power. This leads me to the next thing he pointed out....2. "Do higher dimensions exist?...we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions."Con misunderstands this quote from Michio Kaku. He is referring to the addition of (materialistic) spatial dimensions without adding time dimensions. My hypothesis adds one time dimension and one space dimension in which they are both immaterial. More importantly, unlike CON, I actually contacted Itzhak Bars, the physicist who espouses the two time physics model, through email. I will let him tell you what's up:Kenballer"Hello, my name is Ken. I just want to say that I am strong supporter and big fan of your 2T physics model, which includes a total of six dimensions. I have very important questions to ask you about your model. Would you say that your model is truly a theory of everything and another candidate among others like string theory that seeks to unify all the forces making it the final theory? If you say yes, then I am confused as to why it is not even on the table with theories of everything or spoke of among physicists in big speaking engagements or in the press. In fact, Many physicists even claim that string theory is the only candid despite having many problems. Lastly, has any of your predictions from your model been tested or confirmed yet? I will be honored if you can respond to my questions." Itzhak Bars"......2T-physics is a new framework, beyond string theory, that does aim to reach the unifying theory through deeper and more fundamental symmetry principles that are absent in 1T-physics (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 3+1, string theory in 9+1 , M-theory in 10+1). The symmetry demands the extra two dimensions (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 4+2, string theory in 10+2 , M-theory in 11+2). The 2T-framework is still under development. At this stage 2T-physics does include successfully classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics. In particular the Standard Model and Gravity in 4+2 dimensions are in place and producing results. In that sense 2T-physics already covers all the physics we know at all levels of distance or energy. So it is a correct description of nature as we know it. 2T-physics has not yet dealt with gravity in the context of quantum mechanics. I am also a string theorist. The 2T version of string theory or M-theory is only partially developed. I refrain from speculation any further. In the meantime, it has been demonstrated that 2T-physics goes well beyond 1T-physics in unifying physical systems and making testable predictions that 1T-physics gives no clues about. This includes everyday classical and quantum physics (see examples of dualities and hidden symmetries in my papers and lectures), as well as the physics of the large and small systems, including some aspects of physics at frontiers such as M-theory. For example, in cosmology the 2T approach has produced new understanding of the behavior of the universe at the time of the big bang, including new phenomena, that no other approach managed to understand before. I have followers and collaborators among leading cosmologists that work with me on this topic. So 2T-physics is demonstrably a larger unifying framework, and I believe it is needed to find the truly unified theory. I do speak about 2T-physics in international conferences or workshops several times every year. There are no objections from my colleagues to 2T-physics (e.g. no such papers exist) and in private I get encouragement from leading physicists........." ** Commentary **Let me be clear, this debate is NOT about me scientifically proving God exists where there would be articles in science espousing a universal mind creating and controlling everything. However, confirmation of Itzhak Bars model is the closeist at doing so because it proves that there is a second space-time dimension, and it provides support for the well accepted "holographic principle" model, which suggests that our 3 dimensional universe emerges from digital information processes. In round 2, I provided everyone with two sources that refer to his work. Here are quotes from those papers that support my contentions: "Additional data related to the predictions, that provides information about the properties of the extra 1-space and extra 1-time dimensions, can be gathered by observers stuck in 3+1 dimensions. This is the probe for investigating indirectly the extra 1+1 dimensions which are neither small nor hidden." [2] (emphasis added)"This suggests that, as a general phenomenon, there are hidden relations and hidden symmetries that conventional 1T-physics does not capture, implying the existence of a more unified formulation of physics that naturally supplies the hidden information. In fact, we show that 2T-physics in (d+2)-dimensions is the generator of these dualities in 1T-physics in d-dimensions by providing a holographic perspective that unifies all the dual 1T systems into one." [3] (emphasis added) Lastly, the only difference between what Itzhak Bars espouses and myself is that he has not been made aware of consciousness being a valid alternative to string theory in regards to a quantum theory of gravity. As he alluded to in the email, this is why he thinks his model is incomplete because he did not include string theory, which is the only known or accepted quantum gravity theory among physcists. However, I contend that his model is complete and I explained why within this debate.3. "I argue that since Pro has already agreed that there are evils, and that god created and maintains the universe, then Pro admits that his god created evils and even maintains their existence." Wrong. I only agreed that God created and maintains certain designs, which display the "appearance" of evil. I have already explained what I meant by this in previous rounds. I also want to point out that I demonstrated in round 3 how the similarities between biological and artificial designs were more than just analogous or metaphorical but literal. For example, I cited an experiment where researchers took all the information from a published book and inserted it into the DNA molecule. As a result, they created a biotech version of an e-reader, with the highest storage capacity to date [4]. Debate Conclusions Here is why I won this debate. Whether Con accepts it or not, I provided evidence for a second space-time dimension, which contains abstract objects or digital information. This meant that I was able to show how the mind not only exist in a different dimension but does have some causal influence that is independent from the brain. Therefore, the burden is on Con to show evidence that the brain causes decisions, but, as I said before, existing experiments will not make him successful. Secondly, Con's primary case against my hypothesis relied on the premise that there could not be an independent mind that created the universe if there is no time nor space before the big bang. Since I provided existing evidence of causes, such as us, that can create matter/energy without being made up of matter and energy, his entire case is essentially refuted. Lastly, since this debate is not about providing scientific evidence that proves God exists but justifies belief in God, all the evidence combined should easily justify belief in God.For these reasons, I urge voters to Vote Pro.[1] Radek Lapkiewicz, Peizhe Li, Christoph Schaeff, Nathan K. Langford, Sven Ramelow, Marcin Wieniak, Anton Zeilinger. Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system. Nature, 2011; 474 (7352)https://www.newscientist.com...[2] Itzhak Bars, Gauge Symmetry in Phase Space, Consequences for Physics and Spacetime, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 5235-5252.[3] Ignacio J. Araya, Itzhak Bars. Generalized Dualities in 1T-Physics as Holographic Predictions from 2T-Physics. arXiv:1311.4205v2[4] Church, G. M., Gao, Y. & Kosuri, S. (2012). Next-generation digital information storage in DNA. Science 337, 6102.