God exists

Thanks Con. I. Preface Con doesn't accept I have fulfilled the definition of god required in the resolution. Fortunately both my arguments are based on the origin of the universe , and hence I can bolster both of these arguments in one go. II. Fine Tuning Argument - BARBARA Unfortunately for Pro, converting a BARBARA syllogism into a modus ponens is valid, but doing the reverse is NOT. Take the following syllogisms: P1) If a cup has a chip, THEN it is ruined P2) The cup has a chip C) The cup is ruined P1*) Whatever has a chip is ruined P2) The cup has a chip C) The cup is ruined However you can see the major premise of both arguments are not equivalent. P1 is a subset of P1*. Clearly P1* is a much less sound premise than P1 . As such, all attacks on the BARBARA reformulation are straw men. III. Omnipotence Power is determined by what one is capable within the limits of testing, however God transcends these limits by manipulating the very laws that govern these limits. As such God has power that is transcendent and by all means infinite, and actually transcendent infinite. Imagine an object travelling with an infinite amount of energy, which by the theory of relativity would traveling at the speed of light. God could manipulate the laws to make that infinitely powerful object travel at a slower speed. Therefore God transcends things that are by all means infinite. Pro's objection about variable power is a misnomer than anything else. Pro's statement, "That means, it's perfectly possible for God to create the universe while having limited power." Is one he actually needs to support. It is not clear that such a statement is even logically coherent. IV. Fine Tuned Universe I already said in my opening that finely tuned does not presuppose it being actively tuned, it's just an observational statement of affairs Unfortunately Pro's analogy with evolution simply doesn't cut in the case of fine tuning. In the evolution of life yes there are many ways life could have been, thus starting with say, humans and stating "Hey! If life occurred any other way, then we would never have become bipedal!" is unsound. The critical difference with evolution is there are a spectrum of valid ways that life could have turned out. If humans rabbits and horses never evolved, then we have excellent reason to believe that some other life instead could have filled those niches, hence arguing for life's current state of being is unsound. But this simply is not the case with the origin of the universe, because the argument actually looks at the other ways the universe could have been, and it is clear the vast majority of these, the stupendous majority of these, are completely sterile of anything of interest to speak whatsoever. There would just be nothing but a big black hole or a cloud of hydrogen, or worse! The fact that we live in such a rare configuration that allows for these interesting things to occur, such as galaxy formation, star formation and yes, black hole formation, it is rather farfetched for Pro to assert that our configuration is 'nothing special'. We really do have a special winning ticket. V. Non consciously implies random Critically, in evolution there is actually a selection mechanism, namely natural selection. There is no such apparent process that's even possible for the cosmos, and indeed the burden of proof is on Con to provide it if it does exist. Even if it does however, it just begs the question as I mentioned in my opening. What guiding force would there be? Furthermore, virtually all appeals to naturalistic explanations that fallaciously point to quantum mechanics are almost invariably themselves random. To suggest otherwise seems absurd. Con provides a quote rebutting the tuned-ness of the universe for life, however it actually seems that John Lofton goes some way to affirming my case! Thank you Pro for inadvertently agreeing with my second premise! Note the fine tuning does need *not* be for life, the evidence I have presented argues for a far more broad set of conditions, which is what is required for anything of interest to occur within the universe at all, including life. Pro's objections that life evolved to fit the universe, while perhaps valid, are irrelevant to the argument, since the very conditions that allow for evolution of any sort to take place are themselves finely tuned. Note that I am not appealing to what we don't know, I am appealing to what we do know, and how we do know the universe will be if it was different. It is Con who seems to need to appeal to ignorance. VI. The KCA "Yes, everything we see around us that comes into existence has a cause." Excellent, Pro helps affirm my premise! Please note that our observations even work down to quantum scales independent of time, such as the Casmir Effect![1] Which requires a "quantised vacuum field", clearly this excellent premise holds even as we continue to dig down to smaller and smaller scales and in increasingly more obscure answers. Con's attempt to build an exception to the universe when clearly all other instances of coming into existence requires a cause is simply a fallacy of special pleading.[2] Moreover the PSR was only used as a supporting argument, but to deny this well received principle he would literally have to state that it's possible for contingent things to exist, without a cause. In doing so he pretty much undermines everything in science! If you see a football and I told you there is no reason for it existing, it just is, then you would rightly think I am crazy! This is just the kind of thing Pro has to assert to deny the PSR. VII. A Series of time There are many excellent reasons to accept the A series of time. First consider the only other feasible theory of time is the B theory of time, which states that the past present and future all exist and are real. A theory of time only assumes the present to exist, the past is gone and the future is coming. I would like to ask Pro, who is going to win this debate? Who will be the next president? Because B series of time doesn't distinguish between past present and future. Furthermore how does time actually progress in B series of time? That's like saying the inner layers of an onion physically progress to the outer layers. There is simply no mechanism that allows for the progression, or arrow of time from one point to another. It also raises serious problems of free will and entails determinism. If the future events exist, then everything is deterministic, and free will cannot exist, since you can never choose differently. This is not only prima facie implausible, it also runs into quantum mechanics, which the majority of physicists reject determinism for randomness.[2] VIII. Sustainer Both of my arguments effectively argue for a first cause of the universe, now I didn't get into the qualifier of God sustaining the universe, as it seems to be a subjective one. I would argue that the universe is 'sustained' in the sense that the universe is actually a part of God. For anything that begins to exist, there must be both a material and an efficient cause, for example a marble statue will have a material cause in the marble it is constructed from, and an efficient cause in the sculptor, who actively carved the marble. This applies to anything, including for example particle pair generation, where the material cause is the electroweak field. Similarly, given the universe is caused, it must have both a material and efficient cause. These causes must be not contingent on space, time, charge, matter. I have already affirmed that a mind is an excellent candidate for this first cause, which is greatly affirmed by the fine tuning argument as there is a clear example of telos. However a mind only accounts for the efficient cause, what of the material cause? This is a problem, and the solution is that the material cause IS the efficient cause. For example a person may chop off his own finger, then material and efficient cause are both his body. This also gets around the interaction problem where two things can only ever interact if they share properties. A mind can only interact with matter if they share one or more properties. In the case of the universe, if we imagine a material cause and God, both would need to share properties for God to affect a change. Such an explanation is greatly favoured by Occum's razor It is equally explanatory that God is the material of the universe, and as such, if he is the material, then he pretty well fits the definition of being the sustainer. Moreover it gets around the problem of material not existing before the Big Bang. IX. Conclusion: The resolution is well affirmed, and many of what Pro's objections actually help to support my case! Moreover much of the remainder highlights the absurdity of denying the premises in question. X. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com...