God Exists

Thanks for that Pro.Pro has some confusion between creation and causation.Pro also ignored, perhaps intentionally, the definitions.Oh well, I won't.*P1 of the Contingency Assertion*Pro uses the assertion-laden "contingency argument" to demonstrate a creator of the universe, and instead attempts to show a cause of the universe.Well, cause and creation are not the same thing, because as the agreed-to-definition makes clear, a creation, the process that makes a creator a creator, is a series of actions taken one after the other, not a timeless cause.Either way, the argument isn't very compelling and here's why.The premise "whatever exists has a sufficient reason either in the necessity of its own nature if it is a necessary entity or in a transcedent Sufficient reason if it is contingent" ignores virtual particle pairing.The quantum fluctuation of sub nuclear particles and their forces, or virtual particle-antiparticle pairing, has no sufficient reason in its necessity nor is it contingent.Quantum fluctuation occurs with no energy, no space, no particles, no radiation, no forces; nothing.But here's the best part.Quantum fluctuation also occurs WITH energy, space, particles, radiation, and forces; something.Quantum fluctuations are fundamental and have NO reason for their popping in and out of existence.Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles (not actually full particles, which is why some physicists call them "virtual" particles) existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate along with this existence and annihilation.http://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com...The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum of empty space.However, when there was no space (trace the inverse of the Hubble constant back in time and you get here), unlike our current universe, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles but could never remain like space does now.So while it may seem like the particles are contingent on a vacuum of empty space, that's merely the only way we can detect them with all of this expanding space around us.When there was no universe, no vacuum of empty space was necessary for the fluctuations, because no energy and no space was the condition...nothing ever remained.So we can reject P1 of the contingency argument, because quantum fluctuations are not contingent, nor are they transcendent.http://physics.aps.org...Therefore we can reject the conclusion that the universe has some transcendent reason.The universe originated, not "was created," from unstable quantum fluctuations which are fundamental, ubiquitous, and have no reason for their existence. https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...*Ontological Argument*This argument is particularly dumb, and I've never understood why theists think it's so good.P1, "It is possible that a maximally great being exists" is the entire argument.The problem is that it hasn't been demonstrated that a MGB is possible, it's just asserted.If we're going to use, "it's possible therefore it exists," then it's possible that I'm the Maximally Great Being and I don't exist in all possible worlds.Isn't asserting fun?Also, it should be obvious that you can replace MGB with ANYTHING, including an MGB negation, and the argument still works.It's possible an MGB destroyer exists, because I asserted it.If it's possible, since I merely asserted it, then the MGB destroyer exists in some possible world.If MGB destroyer exists in some world, then it exists in all worlds.Since the actual world is a possible world, MGB destroyer exists in the actual world.That's right.Assertion-->some-->all-->actual.William Lane Craig should be punched in the face for being so stupid.Pro adds:"a maximally great being would contain the great-making properties to the fullest extent."My response:Would it now?Well so does the MGB destroyer...there we're even.Pro doesn't try to demonstrate his assertion, so it is as bare as possible; it's an assertion in every possible world.Pro, demonstrate, without asserting, that some maximally great being exists.Show, don't tell.Pro continues:"Con could fall into a trap of defining a unicorn or a beer or a steak as necessary and then plugging in that steak/unicorn/beer into the original argument...this objection falls...because all of those things are contingent and can not be necessary."My response:Well, the MGB destroyer that I asserted, like you did your MGB, isn't contingent.It's also necessary; remember I just have to assert it per your requirements.All I have to do is assert it, without a demonstration, and your MGB argument concludes the rest of it for me.This is what people laugh about in the academic community.Why do you think just saying something, without demonstration, makes it so?SHOW DON'T TELL.*Rebuttals*Pro asserts more:"The Contingency argument proves a creator and ruler of the universe."My response:Your contingency assertion only would have shown a CAUSE not a CREATOR of the universe, IF it were successful; it wasn't.You've done nothing to show a series of events, one after the other, the definition of CREATION that you overtly agreed to, that led to the bringing about of the universe, rather you asserted a timeless causer, because you're so hell bent on showing immateriality/timelessness.Don't accept definitions you don't agree with.Your god is to be the CREATOR not CAUSER of the universe.Also, P1 of the contingency assertion is refuted by quantum fluctuation.About creation being temporal,Pro says:"Not at all. I can imagine a timeless reality with no passage of time in which a candle is timelessly and staticly causing the flame."My response:Not only did you agree that creation is temporal per the definitions of this debate, but again, this is the god you must affirm, one that used a series of time-based actions to bring about the universe making it the CREATOR of the universe.You're shooting yourself in the foot here.Also, this seems to be an argument from personal credulity, it's under the argument from ignorance umbrella, because Pro is just saying that since he can imagine a timeless cause, it therefore exists.Come on Pro.Stick to creation not causation, and your ability to imagine something has no bearing on whether or not it's true.Pro sticks with it:"I can also provide the following scenario where God is timeless chronologically prior to the universe but becomes temporal at the time of creation."My response:Timeless AND prior?prior - existing or coming before in *time*.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...This speaks to my contention that a creator MUST precede its creation AND that precedence is temporal, and I hope that people can see that saying "timelessly prior" is by definition a contradiction.Boo Pro.Pro uses his imagination:"I can imagine an eternal human causing eternal footprints in the sand, both are eternal, not one comes before the other."My response:Aside from the facts that a) whether or not you can imagine something has no bearing on whether or not it's true and b) causing and creating aren't the same thing, how would you know that the footprints in the sand didn't cause the human?Seriously.Pro, how do you know which is the causer and which is the effect without precedence or time.If they're both eternal, then neither is caused, because neither would have a beginning or end.Now, I had pointed out that claiming there is a CREATOR of the universe would be like saying that some entity used time to originate time.So Pro says:"It would be like saying a creator using time to create this specific temporal dimension."My response:Pro's source didn't mention ANY other time dimensions than the sapcetime we understand as a part of our universe, and instead, like everything else Pro has brought to this debate, Pro just asserts that we live in some "specific" time dimension, implying that there are others.Well, without Pro showing any other time dimensions, there's no reason to think that there are.Therefore, the bringing about of the universe via a series of time-based events, one after the other, CANNOT be accomplished without the spacetime of our universe.Where else is there spacetime, Pro?Please, no more assertions.Pro tries one last thing:"God could still be the creator and ruler of an eternal universe the same way a candle is the creator of an eternal flame."My response:Eternal means that it has no beginning or end, so how could a candle create an eternal flame if the flame always existed?Also, without precedence, how do you know that the flame didn't create the candle, and of course, without precedence, how do you know that the universe had a prior entity that used a series of time-based actions to bring it about?*Conclusion*I really wish Pro would stick to the definition of their god in this debate; it's frustrating to have to rehash definitions after they were necessarily agreed to per the rules of this debate.Pro thinks that simply his ability to imagine something has some bearing on whether or not it's true.Pro also conflates the terms "creation" and "causation," and seems to misunderstand how time works.The resolution is negated.