God is real

1. The Pro case is mumbo jumboThe evidence I gave that the case for CMTU is mumbo jumbo is:a. RationalWiki couldn't parse it. They could do no more than quote the original mess and say that critics found it to be a semantic game.b. Beasley provided an analysis justifying his conclusion that CMTU is "intentionally convoluted." Beasley explains "There is a problem when not only does Langan select obscure and confusing word pairings, he mixes it in with word pairings for concepts he himself is inventing. What person trying to clearly convey what they mean would mix confusing regular language with the technical terms of an at-the-moment-of-reading invention?"c. When pressed for clarity, Pro repeatedly asserts that the unparseable material is clear and that all criticisms are answered therein, but he is generally unable to supply any additional clarification.d. When pressed, Pro is unable to reference anyone who has provided clarifications using ordinary English. I pointed out that the most difficult concepts of cosmological theory, such as those of Hawking, have been explained in plain English both by Hawking and by others who wish to discuss the theories.Keep in mind, I'm not claiming that there aren't some elements of truth in the theory. Superficially convincing double talk requires tantalizing elements of truth. I'm saying that attempts to assemble a coherent theory uniformly fail.2. CMTU is not a scientific theoryPro admits, "CTMU will never be scientifically provable ." That means it cannot be proved right or wrong based upon factual evidence. Moreover, there is no demonstrated utility whatsoever. Langan claims that someday implication for artificial intelligence will be found, but that hasn't happened yet. The boldest claim is that CMTU is consisted with what is observed, by there are any number of consistent theories of the universe. Hawking's theory is consistent with what is observed, but Hawking doesn't claim that his theory is proved. Pro's burden is to prove the existence of the O3 God.The lack of predictive power also means that CMTU is not an explanation. As Beasley pointed out, a theory consistent with everything that might happen explains nothing.3. The AE and the ANB disprove an O3 God. The two arguments are not directly disputed by Pro. If omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence mean what nearly everyone thinks they mean, then the CMTU proof of such a God is false. Pro argues that "the universe is the mind of God." If I understand what Pro is saying, that means that what we see as evil is a product of the divine process of contemplating all the possible outcomes of the universe concurrently. If so, then an omniscient God would know that some of the alternatives cause great pain to sentient humans, and omnipotence would then exclude those possibilities.Pro further argues "since God would be in the position of defining objective morality, he can (and in this course of acting, does) define what 'perfect' entails." That make whatever happens "benevolent" by definition. Nonetheless, it certainly seems evil to humans, and a benevolent God is obligated to at least make His definition of "benevolence" clear to humans, which he does not do. Failure to define benevolence is non-benevolent when the failure leaves humans in doubt of a God that wishes to save them.SummaryCMTU attempts to prove the O3 God exists solely by logical derivation from tautological identity. Aside from the proof being mumbo jumbo, the theory is bound to fail because there are no possible consequences of the proof. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence then mean nothing in humans terms, so the theory explains nothing.