It is likely that a God or gods exist

== Overview ==This entire debate rests on one thing that Pro has yet to defend. Pro claims that God is "beyond the laws of physics." I clearly demonstrated that nothing can be beyond the laws of physics by using the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and many other major sources. Pro completely drops this and continues *barely asserting* that God is beyond the laws of physics. This commits a fallacy known as "ipse dixit". An ipse dixit is "a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement, which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid." [1] Let me illustrate *why* this commits an ipse dixit fallacy. Pro asserts that God, by definition, is supernatural and Pro does not need to defend it. Something that is "supernatural" is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." [2] One cannot directly assert that something is beyond the laws of nature without showing how that is possible. I demonstrated how it is *impossible* by definition of a physical law. While I accept that physical laws are limited, Pro must *prove* that quantum superposition is incorrect or a limited physical law that can be breached before directly saying this does not apply to God as God is supernatural. My *supported* assertion that violating a physical law without proof that such a breach is possible is impossible, yet Pro has not responded to it in any way, and claims that I have dropped it. == Observations ==I maintain that TinyURL can be used as Pro's source against this is an *unofficial* users guide. Many prominent DDO users, such as Mikal, Bluesteel, 16k and Envisage, use TinyURL and there can be no objection. I add that the unofficial guide itself says: "If you like TinyURL, of course remove that bit." Thus, there can be absolutely no objection to the usage of TinyURL.I accept that I will also make arguments against non-creator supernatural beings. == A Note on Sources ==1. A source being old does not mean the source has outdated data, unless proven otherwise. Pro frequently claims my sources are old *without* showing HOW the subject data is flawed. 2. Me citing a physics book as a source does not guarantee that I agree with everything in that book or paper. For example, if I cite a paper as a source on quantum superposition, that *will not* mean I agree with everything else in the paper if they are hypotheses. But if the paper *also* contains a fact, and I cite it for that fact, you cannot directly dismiss it saying that the source also says something incorrect, so you disagree with the source. When a source is cited, it is a *reference* for information and NOT my entire argument. 3. The Grand Design does not advocate for a position of the multiverse theory, merely stating it is a possibility. It instead advocates for M-theory, which is perhaps dubious, but nonetheless irrelevant to this debate. == Refutation & Defense ==(1) CosmologyIn this subdivision, I will (a) defend my case on causality being impossible and not required, and (b) refute the KCA. //A// Causality Is Not RequiredWhile I *did* cite that paper, that does not mean I am defending that model. Secondly, prior debates have no bearing on this debate, for there is *always* a chance that people have changed their minds, which I, in fact, have. The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the sum of all energy in the universe is zero, due to scalar "positive" energy cancelling out vector gravitational force's attractive pressure, which acts as "negative" energy. "[T]he positive energy of matter can be balanced by negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes." [3] Under a sum of net energy in the universe being zero, the universe could have "popped" into existence simply because the energy in the universe is zero but still present. [4] Thus, everything that begins to exist need not have a cause. Quantum fluctuations are an example of this. During this, a particle and antiparticle exist for a very short time (even shorter than Planck time), and then annihilate with a great release of energy. [5]//B// Actual InfinitiesMy opponent uses the Hilbert's hotel paradox to argue for the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities. Hilbert's hotel is a veridical paradox, a valid argument with an *absurd* conclusion. [6] Hilbert's hotel does not disprove actual infinities, merely showing that infinities have non-definite properties. The American philosopher and Professor Emeritus at Boston University, Professor Michael L. Martin, writes: "Craig's a priori arguments are unsound or show at most that actual infinities have odd properties." [7] He continues by saying, "This latter fact is well known, however, and shows nothing about whether it is logically impossible to have actual infinities in the real world. ... [and] Craig fails to show that there is anything logically inconsistent about an actual infinity existing in reality." [8] The existence of actual infinities are justified by the existence of black holes, all of which contain singularities, a "point" in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume. [9] If there is already in existence a physical actual infinity, then there is no dispute that actual infinities can exist. //C// Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theoremsPro's interpretation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem relies on the assumption that spacetime remains classical and the presentism ontology of time is correct. The former is unlikely in light of quantum gravity, and the latter is dubious in light of general relativity, which entails four-dimensionalism (one of time, three of space) and eternalism. [10] //D// Acausal ExplanationsThere are multiple acausal explanations for the origin of the universe. Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension." [11]Retro-Causality: "Quantum entanglement is a state where two particles have correlated properties: when you make a measurement on one, it constrains the outcome of the measurement on the second, even if the two particles are widely separated. It's also possible to entangle more than two particles, and even to spread out the entanglements over time, so that a system that was only partly entangled at the start is made fully entangled later on." [12-13]As such acausal explanations exist and are possible, causality is not required. //E// Quantum SuperpositionMy OV applies here. God is logically incoherent if he does not obey the laws of nature unless proven otherwise. In addition, IF there are explanations other than God (which there are), and God is not required, then the explanation which obeys physical laws is most likely. God's existence does not obey physical laws. //F// Impossibility of Atemporal Causality & MindsExtend OV. ConclusionThus, the universe can exist without a cause, and causality is impossible. (2) TeleologyThe second law of thermodynamics, in simple, states: "[I]n any closed system, disorder ... always increases with time. ... [T]here are always many more disordered states than ordered ones." [14] Thus, the universe is entirely based on chance and randomness, and this greatly increases the probability that the universe was fine-tuned by chance for life. This also relies on a philosophical interpretation that life even has a purpose. Perhaps rocks and living beings are the same, just "things", from a philosophical perspective of existential nihilism. What makes a living being "special" as compared to a rock? [15](5) Refutation of a Polytheistic DeityPolytheistic deities are supernatural. It is already demonstrated that something being supernatural is impossible unless defended otherwise. Ergo, polytheistic deities are impossible. (4) Religious Experience#2: Once more, parsimony applies as I have defended my case and refuted my opponent's arguments.#3: Yes, but these are contradicting properties of the being. Which property is correct? All arguments you have presented are specific to a single interpretation (except RE, but as that defends the same interpretation, it can be considered thus), so a simultaneous defense of all interpretations will contradict your own arguments. In addition, all your arguments on God being beyond the laws of nature are ad hoc explanations, and I invoke the "testable statements" argument here as well, as the only way to refute that is ad hoc. Religious experiences contradict, thus only ad hoc can defend them. #4: Background knowledge requires God not to violate physical laws, thus the other explanation fulfills this. #5: It is not difficult to test the God hypothesis. This is against religious experience, not the God hypothesis. "... it is not unsurprising that our brains should be designed so that we can be more receptive to him." - this is ad hoc, and has nothing to do with religious experience. And I did not say majority of the people are delusional; I said those that have objective experiences of God (very few) are delusional, i.e. they saw God physically. This is nonetheless an experience, ergo "why" is not a good refutation. If something is experienced, then it is definitely true by the logic of this argument. ==Conclusion==The resolution remains resoundingly negated. I have defended all my arguments and refuted all my opponent's, and my opponent defends their entire case with ad hoc arguments. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...;[2] Google ["define supernatural"] [3] S.W. Hawking & L. Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. p. 180. [4] http://tinyurl.com...;[5] http://tinyurl.com...;[6] http://tinyurl.com...;[7] M.L. Martin (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. p. 104.[8] Ibid. pp. 104-105. [9] http://tinyurl.com...;[10] http://tinyurl.com...;[11] http://tinyurl.com...;[12] http://tinyurl.com...;[13] http://tinyurl.com...;[14] S.W. Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time. pp. 153-154. [15] http://tinyurl.com...;