There is most likely an intelligent creator of the universe

BurdensThe burden of proof is on Pro. Pro concedes that, but still holds that it’s impossible for me to win unless I present offensive arguments. That’s nonsensical. First, the purpose of the burden of proof is to presume the position of the side that doesn’t have the burden of proof. Second, Pro says that judges must presume a 50% probability for each side, but that’s false, because Pro carries the greater burden. As such, judges must presume my side, because my side isn’t that the universe is not a simulation - it is both the former, and the agnostic position. I’ve shown that the resolution is a fact-claim, and, therefore, Pro has the burden of proof, to prove that it is likely that the universe was intelligently created. My burden is only to refute Pro’s arguments and uphold the default position. But I’ve actually done more than that - using my argument from the limits of computation, I’ve shown that the universe is not a simulation due to lack of computational power. Pro argues that Occam’s razor dictates his position as more likely. That argument is nonsense, for many reasons. I don’t need to come up with an alternate theory at all. That’s because a simulation itself is an additional assumption to the default position. As I’ve established, the burden of proof is on Pro, which means judges presume Con. Furthermore, I didn’t actually defend the idea of the computer emerging without a cause. Pro is shifting the burden of proof. I don’t need to prove that it’s more likely for the computer to be uncaused; Pro must prove that it’s likely the computer had a cause. Pro has the burden to show that there is likely an intelligent creator of the universe. So Pro must prove that the computer on which the simulation exists had an intelligent creator. Pro frequently confuses the burdens. The burdens are not shared. If the debate is tied on arguments, judges must vote Con. Judges must presume Con, because the burden of proof is on Pro. Pro doesn’t show that Occam’s razor dictates we presume Pro. I don’t have to argue that my position is more likely correct, or that Pro’s position is more likely false. That’s not my position at all. All I need to do is prove that the default position is to be maintained, and Pro fails to demonstrate the resolution. RelevancePro drops relevance except with Occam’s razor. I argued that even if the universe was a simulation, there’s no reason to believe that the computer that generates the simulation was created by an intelligent being, because sans the universe, our perceptions of causation don’t necessarily hold. Pro claims that I must prove the probability of an uncaused computer, but I don’t. The burden is on Pro. It’s up to Pro to prove the probability of a caused computer, or we presume an agnostic position. Under an agnostic position, Pro hasn’t shown how his argument is relevant to the resolution, so judges vote Con. Even under Occam’s razor, an uncaused computer is more likely. Let’s list the assumptions of the two sides. Pro presumes (a) a computer with the simulation of the universe, and (b) an intelligent creator of the computer. The relevance argument only needs to presume (a), so it’s more likely that the argument is irrelevant. Vote Con because Pro doesn’t link his argument to the resolution. Simulation Hypothesis(1) Limits of computationPro drops the Chinese room argument, except to say that I don’t sufficiently explain it. This assertion isn’t justified. It was clearly explained by me. Let’s say we lock a man who only knows English in a room. He finds a paper in the room that says for him to be released, he needs to respond to certain Chinese symbols with other symbols. For instance, for the symbol A, he needs to respond with symbol B. A key is provided for him. And he would do it. But that doesn’t mean he actually understands Chinese. Computation works the same way. For a simulation like our world to be created, we would have to realize our own existence, and be self-aware. But computers can’t generate self-awareness or be self-aware, because they communicate in the same way the man in the room does - he doesn’t know Chinese, but he responds to some Chinese words with other Chinese ones. Pro responds to my argument regarding Bostrom’s three assumptions (size of particles, duration, gravity) with a single card from Bostrom that only refutes the argument from quark-level interactions. He drops duration and gravity. Bostrom doesn’t show that gravity doesn’t have to be simulated, and neither does Pro. Occam’s razor would suggest that gravity does need to be simulated, since gravitational force doesn’t just exist contingent to itself. This argument in itself is sufficient reason to vote Con. Even without the second part, the Chinese room argument entirely refutes the idea that computation is powerful enough to generate such a simulation. I’ve proven that computation isn’t that powerful, and Bostrom exaggerates how powerful computation is. If a simulated universe is impossible, there’s no question of Occam’s razor and probability. Judges must, on account of this, vote Con. (2) Stacked civilizationsPro says that since humans can become posthuman, it’s possible that a posthuman civilization already exists. But since Pro carries the burden, he must prove that it’s probable that a posthuman civilization exists. He appeals to Occam’s razor, but doesn’t show that Occam’s razor entails the likelihood of a posthuman civilization’s existence. The razor talks about invoking assumptions, and less posthuman civilizations invokes lesser assumptions than more of them. Pro doesn’t show how Occam’s razor would entail that since humans can become a posthuman civilization, one already exists. Pro keeps confusing probability and possibility. Even if it’s possible, Pro doesn’t show the probability of a posthuman civilization existing. The existence of posthumans is an assumption within all of Pro’s arguments for an intelligent creator, and that assumption hasn’t been justified as probable. Furthermore, there’s no reason to believe we aren’t the first civilization that’s going to become posthuman. The axiom that "[w]hen you consider the fact that stacked civilizations could exist, and that a society could create several simulated universes, each simulated universe having stacked simulated universes, we have to assume we're most likely simulations" isn’t justified by Pro at all. Pro merely argues that since there will be a constant regress of ancestor simulations, it’s best to presume we’re also an ancestor simulation. That’s a bare assertion. Pro keeps talking about how the debate is about proving which is the "most likely" situation, and keeps appealing to Occam’s razor, but doesn’t actually show that his advocacy is most likely. He doesn’t argue for it at all outside of nonsense bare assertions and multiple assumptions. (3) PopulationPro defends against the population assumption weakly. He says all arguments have assumptions, and Bostrom probably calculated it based on certain figures. That’s all nonsense. The assumption in question is critical to Bostrom’s argument. Bostrom’s formula attempts to prove that posthuman civilizations would create a certain X number of simulations, and, based on that, ours is likely to be one of them. So, even assuming such a civilization exists, a certain X number of simulations would have to be achieved for Bostrom’s formula to accurately show the probability. Bostrom’s calculation of that variable X is flawed because of his determination of posthuman population. Pro is probably going to argue something about "his burden only to prove that there’s slightly more than 50% probability of a simulation," or something similar. But that isn’t an adequate response, since it’s Pro’s burden to at least prove that, and that can’t be proven without knowing the population of posthuman civilizations. If nothing is proven, vote Con. It’s impossible to prove even the "slightly over 50%" likelihood that the universe is a simulation without knowing posthuman populations. (4) Indicators of the hypothesisPro entirely drops all the indicators of the hypothesis. Therefore, it’s a concession by omission. ConclusionThe burden is on Pro to prove that there’s most likely an intelligent creator of the universe. Judges assume a 50% probability of the resolution being true, and since the resolution is a fact claim, judges must presume Con. If Pro fails to prove the likelihood of the resolution, then vote Con. And Pro has failed to prove the resolution as likely true. The argument is irrelevant to the resolution, since a simulated reality doesn’t entail a creator. Pro’s appeal to Occam’s razor fails because it’s actually an additional assumption for an intelligent creator. Pro frequently misunderstands Occam’s razor and fails to properly apply it in probability. I’ve shown that Bostrom exaggerates computational power, and computation alone cannot create an ancestor simulation. Pro doesn’t show that "posthumans" even exist, and that the possibility of us becoming posthuman entails that there was probably a posthuman civilization that created us. Pro virtually drops the population argument, and it’s impossible to know if the simulation hypothesis is true without knowing posthuman populations.