God Exists

Arguments from EvilEvil is not inconsistent with the existence of God the same way that Cold and Darkness are not inconsistent with the existence of Light and Heat. Evil are mostly manifestations of our unreserved ability to act on our thoughts.Requiring God to eliminate evil requires it to inhibit our intellectual faculties and prevent us from exhibiting every manner of action, including those of evil. God in doing simply dissolves into a dictator and a master puppet, and contradict the very nature of creation.Take the example of a clock, which is made to serve a purpose, to run without constant intervention. In a similar fashion, the universe has its own set of independent laws so as to operate on its own.To require God to interfere and remove evil in all manner of human thought and action is similar to a clock engineer interfering with the clock every second. He might as well throw his invention and be his own clock. It defeats the purpose of creation.Evil is never inconsistent with the nature of God since God has to allow Evil as part of the “virtue” of granting free will.Even Religion, despite their inconsistencies, did not claim in anyway that God committed to the universe to be one Big McHappy Place. On the contrary, in Christianity for example, God became human to suffer at the hands of Evil men to show his solidarity with the rest of humanity.The con similar to many Atheists simply demands that if God exists, Evil and Suffering should not. This is ignoring the fact that no Religion or Philosophy ever made such claim in history. Omnis are desirable but never a pre-requisite The motion of this debate is to argue that God is the more probable cause for the existence of the universe. The common labels of omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence are unique only to Abrahamic Religions and are not shared universally. But presupposing the existence of God based on ad-hoc claims by any specific Religion is simply begging the question. The baggaged claims made by various Religion and Schools of Thought (especially antiquated ones) should not be determinant of God’s existence, the same way that the DEMOCRATIC Republic of Korea (or North Korea) should not be used as measure of the virtues of Democracy. Omnis are desirable traits but as this house has shown, are not necessary pre-conditions for the existence of God. The ability to create a universe and exhibit consciousness already suffice and more than meet the scientific standards that Atheists always demand for. Atheists demand scientific explanations so I find it bewildering that I am required to comply with unscientific claims (omnis) which are also never universally accepted. Instead of making extraneous demands derived from outdated Philosophy, the con must provide arguments why the traits that he desire are necessary components to show probable cause. Avoid omnis but prove it anyway The existence of God can be demonstrated simply by showing that the cause of the universe’s existence exhibited consciousness. But there is the danger that even if cause and consciousness have already been shown, the Atheist will find reason to deny God’s existence because of ones failure to meet the ad-hoc demands for omnis. But God do exhibit these properties! The ability to create the universe or multiverse is proof of extreme potency. The ability to create the laws that came with the universe shows vast omniscience. And the fact that the creation of the universe is a willful decision by a conscious being that also granted free will is an extreme act of benevolence. Positive Cosmological Constant and a Fixed space-time boundaryThis is not an argument. This is a statement of known fact.However, fixed space-time boundary does not automatically imply a singularity.It equally applies to other theories (Hawking Hartle Close space-time loops, or Cyclical universes) that seek to explain a physical mechanism for inflation, big bang, or start of the universe.The implication that there is a temporal beginning is unavoidable as steady-space or infinite space without beginning is inconsistent with the thermodynamic properties of inflation (dark energy) were a positive cosmological constant persists.Non-contigency of the Energy at the Quantum VacuumThe CON suggests that there are possibly multiple states which preceded the creation of the universe, and the big bang is not necessary the beginning.This is false since energy is thermodynamic. It cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed. It is its own beginning and its own end.To suggest that there were earlier states is to say that something preceded or created the energy in the quantum vacuum.NON-CONTINGENCY is implied in thermodynamics and it is impossible that anything CREATED or PRECEEDED energy. Even if a different form of energy preceded it, it is still energy.As the energy also manifested intelligence, it must therefore be conscious and viable candidate for a physical manifestation of God Futility of ReligionThe CON required that God must be defined in a specific way (omnis) which is unique to a certain Religion.As I have stated, this is irrelevant. A scientific explanation will suffice, and resorting back to claims of Religion does nothelp. Universe from NOTHINGIf not NOTHING, it came from SOMETHING. If the CON agrees the universe came from SOMETHING, he must provide counter-examples of what those are if he doesn’t agree thatconsciousness is responsible. And if he invokes chance, he should show why the universe is what it is today despite the fact the odds are against it.Differential Information TheoryThe laws of the universe (including gravity) is derived from the physical properties of the universe.The CON simply presupposes that the laws already exist by themselves without providing reason as to how they arise.The universe could either came from design or chance. And Information Theory has shown that invoking chance requires that we show how the universe have life permitting properties (or even exist at all) if the probability of such laws existing is EXTREMELY low.M-theory provided a lowest boundary of 1 to 10^500 which is equivalent to winning a 1-to-6million lottery 70 times in succession.It is MORE PROBABLE that the lottery was rigged the same way that it is MORE PROBABLE that the laws of the universe were designed rather than occurring by chance alone. Retro-causality and Wave function collapseThis is merely one of the many interpretations of quantum mechanics and there was never consensus on why one interpretation should be favoured over another. Erwin Schroedinger warned people about this when he explained that Wave Function is nothing but a mere mathematical tool the same way that Matrix Mathematics is a tool. Using matrix mathematics does not imply that we live in the matrix. And as Roger Penrose has argued, quantum gravity by itself and not consciousness can cause wave function to collapse. But by convenience, I will simply agree with the CON that consciousness is responsible except to say that temporally and physically it is more logical that it is NOT human since energy in the quantum vacuum is space-less as it pre-dates space-time. Atheistic Naturalism is inconsistent with the scientific method Naturalism asserts that regardless of any future observation or experiment, we will never observe anything extra-ordinary that will conflict with our predisposition of what is “Natural”. This is in obvious conflict with the Scientific method where one is not to presuppose discovery. Naturalism continue to ignore that every NEW scientific discovery in the past introduced new paradigms of thought that completely challenged and disposed our very notion of what is nature. Particle-Wave Duality, Space-time, QuantumEntanglement, Higgs Mechanism, Computing, Artificial Intelligence. Scientists are famous for saying that life may exist in conditions that we least expect. The same can be said about consciousness, which if compared to chance, provide a more compelling explanation to the cause of universe.