God Exists

OriginI am perfectly aware that the source stands against me. If I didn't have a response it would be quite silly of me to use it, wouldn't it? Perceiving the FuturePro states we should be able to perceive the future and past. Take the ordinary/everyday view on time. Which might just be presentism. According to it, the "now" is all that exists. I exist now, Saturn exists now, we are just spatially disconnected. This explains why I perceive the weather here at home and why I don't perceive the weather on Saturn's backside. Under eternalism every point of time exists. I exist, martian outposts exist, we are just temporally disconnected. For Minkowski spacetime, space and time are analogous. This explains why I am not able to perceive the martian outpost which exist 1000 years from now. Time TravelPro correctly states that time travel is possible under eternalism. Which is an upside for my view. We know for quite some time that, if you travel very fast, near the speed of light, or come close to very massive objects, such as black holes, you can "travel into the future". We make use of this time travel everyday. It is known as time dilation and we use it for our GPS to work properly. "Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly"[1]This would not be possible if presentism is true. Pro immediately takes this to enable all kinds of paradoxes, when he talks about the eventual possibility of killing your younger self. "It is circular logic"No, this has nothing to do with circular reasoning. This is what we call a paradox. However, although it's logically possible to travel back in time, you would not be able to change anything. If you were to travel back, you would have already been there. So, if your 20 years old self visits your 10 years old self, you *will fail to kill yourself, because you have already failed to kill yourself. Finally, my opponent claims there to be no evidence for my view, but he completely ignored my argument from special relativity for eternalism. Pro objects that this contradicts our experiences, but he cannot on one hand appeal to physics to further his argument and on the other dismiss it in favor of everyday experience. Concerning the BGV-theorem he quotes Vilenkin himself. However, his source, reasonablefaith. org, does not cite Vilenkin at any point. But even if he said something like this, judging by the language, it was certainly not from any of his professional works. The 2003 paper is rather clear on its conclusion [2]. "almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time"Which is to say the universe is not infinitely old. However nothing in this paper suggests, that there was literally nothing before that boundary. Which would be needed to speak of creation. It changed, it did not begin. It continues with"some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary"Which is to say we have no clue. Fine-TuningYes, suggesting an infinite amount of different possibilities my opponent did not consider is an argument. He says he just tries to conclude the most reasonable option. Imagine examining three swans of an potentially infinite swan population. You discover these three swans are black. Following my opponents reasoning it would be on this basis more reasonable to say all swans are black than to suspend judgement. Which is absurd. And, as I've said, an argument from ignorance. It is not my job to present evidence for my suggested possibilities. It is his job to defend the premises of his argument. Therefore, he has to consider at least an representative sample of possibilities, not just three. But since he dismissed this completely, he has not provided sufficient reason to accept his premises. I agree, it's "the whole point of this debate" to see whether there is evidence for God. It supposedly is my burden to "expose the supposed lack of evidence by refuting me". However, as I have said, my opponent cannot use the conclusion of his argument to claim there to be more evidence for God than for necessity. That is to beg the question. He then makes the the most unnecessary strawman I have seen so far. I said:"If we had empirical evidence, the newspapers would have gone batsh1t crazy"He says I am denying the antecedent, "we have no empirical evidence". This way I supposedly conclude that the newspapers have not gone crazy. Now, why on earth would I want to conclude that? This debate is about the existence of God, not newspapers. It is painfully obvious that the newspapers have not gone crazy, therefore I conclude there is no evidence. It was a joking remark for an obvious conclusion and does not deserve to be taken this seriously. The reason why I invoked the razor was explained in the same paragraph. "I can use the razor as my opponent in no way challenged the idea of necessity being an option able to adequately explain what we see, he merely objected that we have no evidence, ergo no reason to accept it. "Which he ignored. He asserts atheism gives no explanation. First of all, atheism does not even attempt to explain this, it's a category mistake. I might just as well prefer a fairy theory over evolution, as fairies give at least some explanation for quantum entanglement while evolution gives none. Sounds absurd? It is. Secondly, if we interpret his statement as referring to physical necessity giving no explanation, then he commits the fallacy of proof by assertion. As I've said, I used the razor precisely because my opponent has not contested the notion of necessity being a valid explanation. Now he simply asserts that it isn't and demands me to defend necessity. To get this clear. This is his argument. He needs to justify his premises to reach his conclusion. Unless he does that, there is no reason to think his conclusion is true. But now, there is no opportunity left for him to do so. ChancePro misses the point of my rebuttal. Neither is all I have to say about the ratio that it is fishy, nor is my point that the ratio might be inaccurate. "Con must give evidence for why it is more reasonable to accept the incredibly small probability of random chance over design"No, I do not have to do that. My point is that the Penrose Ratio is not even a probability to begin with. Which I have explained in the round Pro is responding to. Therefore we cannot talk about incredibly small possibilities as we do not even have a single probability at hand, which we could talk about. Thus, my opponent cannot use the Penrose Ratio to argue against chance. Further, he dropped my contention that nobody has ever demonstrated that the constants could possibly have any different values. Misguided ArgumentMy opponent states "A being who can tune constraints likely has power to do many other things as well"To which I of course agree. I never claimed anything to the contrary. But on what basis do we conclude that it can in fact do not only many other things, but all other things? Recall, it is a necessary condition for a being to be omnipotent before we could say it is God. It has to be fulfilled for some being to be. So even if his argument was successful, it would be incredibly weakened by this consideration. He continues with"prove there is not a loving God, prove there was not a creation"Which I have done with the argument from Divine Hiddeness and Eternalism, respectively. Meaning, Purpose, MoralityPro states"objective moral truths cannot exist as products of random, purposeless chance". But I already said I don't believe they are. He demands me to justify my believe in the objectivity of morality. So, let's get this straight, as well. It was his claim that"humanity's universal sense of meaning, purpose, and morale value judgments should be interpreted as empirical evidence that these concepts are real. This demands there must be a "God"",not mine. Again, he has to justify his premises to reach his conclusion. I owe no rebuttal to nobody unless there is at least antecedent reason to believe his premises, but Pro has not given any. Some Responses to Pro's Last RoundOriginally I did not want to respond to keep a clearer structure in this debate. However I feel some points made by Pro need to be addressed. He states if at that time one believes that God exists. .. " (premise)[then] "one is in a position to participate in a meaningful conscious relationship with God. .. " (inference)This is no inference, it is called an implication. In fact separated like this neither part is a valid expression. You cannot state an antecedent (if) without a consequent (then) and still have a valid argument. He brings up deism again. But we are not talking about deism, we are talking about a loving God, as defined. Pro says I am shifting the goal posts in going from "all" to "most people". However, I don't even know where I supposedly made the first claim. I said"if not everyone, at least most reasonable people"But let's say, I shifted my claim. Moving the goal posts is a fallacy where at first little and later more evidence is demanded. In going from all to most one requires less, not more evidence. He complains my argument is circular. However I said this is a very simple form of what I wanted to bring across without delving into formal logic speak. It is painfully obvious that the actual argument is not circular. He dropped my actual objection here. Lastly, he claims a loving God would not kick you out of paradise, but the wager relies itself on exclusivism/pluralism, which would are inconsistent with a loving God in them self! Thus the wager is a non-starter.