It is Probable That God Does Not Exist

First, I will address my opponent's claim that I did not address any of their arguments. This is patently false, but just in case their is any confusion, I will reiterate my previous points and explain in more detail why exactly they weaken my opponent's argument. My opponent did not give multiple arguments in their first essay, as was implied. Rather, the entire essay comprised one rather simple argument which goes like this: Premise 1: There is no evidence that God exists. Premise 2: There are hypothesized ways that the universe could have come about without the existence of a deity, using solely the laws of physics. Supporting evidence 1: Quantum fluctuations Supporting evidence 2: Hartle-Hawking state Supporting evidence 3: Mathematical proof that the universe could have existed spontaneously Premise 3: (Implied) The simpler of two hypotheses should be preferred if the more complicated one provides no extra explanatory value. Conclusion: It is probable that God does not exist. My opponent appears to want me to attack the three hypotheses were given as supporting evidences to the second premise. I do not need to do this in order to dismantle their argument. All I need to do is attack the premises themselves, which I did. Most of my first essay was spent providing evidence that contradicts Premise 1. Aquinas's Cosmological argument and the Fine-Tuned Universe argument both provide evidence contrary to at premise. We can argue the merits of this evidence, but it is unfair and wrong to say that I did not address that premise. I also addressed the Premise 2, and, to an extent, my opponent's supporting evidences. I think this is what my opponent refers to in saying that I have not addressed their arguments. I attacked this premise in the third paragraph of my first essay, asserting that all of my opponent's theories offer no explanation for the laws of physics themselves, and this presupposition of their existence undermines the second premise. I will expound upon this later. I will now move on to my opponent's rebuttals. My opponent argues that Aquinas's uncaused cause may be the laws of physics themselves. Such a belief is a rather unconventional and probably incorrect view of scientific law. According to astronomer Robert Jastrow, it is important to recognize that before the Big Bang there were no laws of physics. Such laws, being a product of the Big Bang, are meaningless in explaining the event of their origin. Dinesh D'Souza excellently describes Jastrow's position, saying, "The laws of science are a kind of grammar that explains the order and relationship of objects in the universe," having no meaning or purpose outside that universe. [2] An intrinsic part of the universe, physical laws describe, rather than determine, what happens, so they originated with the universe. My opponent's own source states that the universe began as a singularity, [1] where the laws of science did not apply. [3] My opponent's second premise creates an oxymoron by assuming that physical laws, which are a part of the universe, predated the universe. Thus, the universe (or part of it) preceded itself. The assumption that scientific law transcends the universe removes us from the realm of science and replaces it with a highly speculative philosophy, relegating physical laws to some ghostly realm of absolutes similar to Plato's forms. [4] There is certainly no more evidence that this is the case than there is that God exists, and probably less. It is certainly not the common scientific understanding. It it is an acceptable belief, but don't pretend to have science on your side in believing it. My opponent also objects to my argument by saying, "What makes more sense: a god for which we have no evidence who has existed forever ... or a set of rather insignificant laws which allowed this universe to be formed?" First of all, continually repeating "there is no evidence" does not make it true. Second, it does make more sense that God would exist without cause than that physical laws would. Physical laws, as I have shown, are believed to be characteristics of our universe. In our universe, everything must have a cause. Anselm's argument does not require everything to have a cause. Rather, in our universe, a series of events depends on something else that exists outside of the series, as I have said. However, the law of causality is only necessarily true within our universe. Which makes more sense, that the laws of physics, existing within a universe in which everything requires a cause would break that law of causality by existing autonomously, or that a being which exists independently of our universe and is therefore not bound by the law of causality would not have a cause? In addressing the fine-tuning argument, my opponent invokes the vast size of the universe as a counter-argument. The fact that life is rare in the universe does not undermine my position in the slightest. In fact, if anything, it supports it. The incredibly low probability of complex, intelligent life forming at all [5] indicates that not only our universe, but our planet, is fine-tuned, only making my position stronger. Furthermore, the very laws of physics which are my opponent's "god" are exactly designed to permit life. For example, if down-quarks were heavier than they are, the matter in the universe would behave like helium, rather than hydrogen. All matter would be inert, rendering life impossible. The universe would be formless and void. [6] If the universe had expanded at a rate one-millionth slower than it did, it would have collapsed before stars could form. [7] If the force of gravity had differed by 1/10^40, stars like our sun could not exist, rendering life impossible. [8] The list goes on, but I hope that this gives a bit of insight into how special our situation truly is. Detail and harmony suggest purpose, indicating design. My opponent articulates my point rather well, saying, "The universe could never not seem fine-tuned for life because if it was not fine-tuned for life there would be no consciousness there to perceive it." Exactly. If the universe did not possess all of these exact factors, life could not exist. Finally, my opponent claims that my argument diminishes in power as we learn more, but the fine-tuning argument depends not on our ignorance of the world, but on our knowledge of its complexities. The more we learn, the more fine-tuned our universe seems to be, and the more it points to a God. For example, prior to the 20th century, many scientists believed in a steady-state universe. Einstein's theory of relativity proved highly troubling to many scientists because it pointed to a beginning, and therefore a designer. [7] The incredible complexity of the cell, rather than obviating the need for God, undermines evolution as an origin theory. [9] Even Christopher Hitchens cites the fine tuning argument as the strongest argument for intelligent design. [10] The fine-tuning argument becomes more relevant, not less, with time. In conclusion, the fine tuning argument provides strong evidence that the universe could not come about by chance, and God is the only probable explanation of the existence of scientific laws that does not run contrary to logic. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] D'Souza, Dinesh. "What's So Great About Christianity?" p.121 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [5]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com... [6] https://cosmosmagazine.com... [7] Geisler, Norman, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." p. 73, 105 [8] http://www.discovery.org... [9] http://www.ideacenter.org... [10]