The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence (2)

1. A1. Nothing is infinite in reality The induction my opponent uses to arrive at this absurd conclusion is twice wrong. First it's wrong because the conclusion is inconsistant with scientific observations, which violates the inductive method. Second it's wrong because it implies a commonality among any given subset of reality - for instance, that a pile of apples is evidence that time is finite. That leads to the paradox of all horses being the same color (http://en.wikipedia.org......), which is a logical fallacy. Well first off, CON did not bother to show how my conclusions were inconsistent with scientific observations. Second, CON needs to demonstrate by explaining how my particular demonstrate is a logical fallacy and not just assert that there is a logical fallacy because it sounds like a logical fallacy to him. That's how it works when you claim the other side is making a fallacy. You explain how your opponent's argument is flawed then give a similar example to reinforce it. I was never trying to compare gravity to the God hypothesis but give a good example of the inductive method. So CON needs to articulate more clearly how my demonstration is a logical fallacy. 2. F. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time. "Pro makes this whole case (completely unrelated to my point, by the way) that time cannot be around for eternity, but eternity is a measure of time. If there was no time, there would be no eternity. If there is no eternity, God cannot be described as eternally existing. This is the contradiction I identified in round two, which hasn't been answered." Well first off, Whether time is conceptual or not is not consistent with the debate topic because its mainly based on science not the metaphysical. However, for the sake of argument, I will go along with PRO's contention since I think it will be good in better clarifying and answering his objection since he seem's to be a bit confused on it. Let me summarize it what I said before. There are two theories of time. The A-theory of time and the B-theory of time. The A-theory of time is the logical and concrete time where there's a series of "moments".The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments. We as limited human beings can only understand this theory of time because we exist in it. I have already explained logically and concretely why this theory of time is what the universe itself operates under not apart from it. The B-theory of time (or meta-time as some would call it) is the definition of eternity where it implies that time is just a concept or an illusion of human conscious. There is no such thing as past or future. There would only be one moment of time, which is referred to as the "NOW" or present, which means eternity cannot and is not a measure of time as we know it, according to CON. This theory of time is what I argued God to operate under since the universe cannot and does not operate under it. 3. A2. Time must have been "begun" "Pro still argues that God created himself, but that nothing else can create itself, and still hasn't told us why, or provided any scientific backing to his claim. Even if it's possible for a cause and effect to be simultaneous, it still doesn't answer my argument." Now, let me address this part of CON's argument to help everyone understand my argument in its entirety. I was not implying or trying to argue that GOD was chronologically prior to the universe but argue that he is Causality prior to the Universe. So when CON said " Let me get this straight - God is not real, but at the moment of creation this thing that is not real decided to become real for an instant for the purposes of creating a universe?" , I was not saying God decided to become a part of reality in a temporal sense but in a Causally non-temporal sense. Now, CON's counter argument to this claim was that there has to be a prior moment of time for Causality to make sense and exist. My response was that the cause and effect could be simultaneous. The moment or time in which God caused the universe to come into being could be the moment the universe came into being making the cause and effect simultaneous, which would provide empirical evidence of its existence.Therefore, if CON'S very acknowledgement that they can be coincident in that way, then there is no reason why we could not have something that is timeless and be related to its effect timelessly. For GOD being within eternity or B-theory of time, there is no series of thoughts in time but only one eternal thought of everything like a snapshot from a camera. Furthermore, the very act of creation would imply a direct causal relationship between the cause and the effect in which this cause did not stand before and therefore would be a change that brings God into time. What I argued was that the moment or time in which God caused the universe to come into being is the moment the universe came into being making the cause and effect simultaneous. So I think CON is confused because he has a lack of understanding for the concept of eternity or the B-theory of time because our human experience and perception of time operates only under the A-theory. 4.B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimension See Item 3 above. 5.B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind "I agree that science relies on metaphysics. I disagree that science is metaphysics, or that science can confirm metaphysics. If my opponent's claim is that science is premised on metaphysics, then using science to confirm metaphysics is really metaphysics confirming metaphysics, which is arguing in a circle. My opponent doesn't respond to that." I actually agree with 99% of what CON said here as well. However, I disagree with CON when he said that science cannot confirm the meta physic. I am arguing that science can confirm God as the metaphysical exception. Even though God himself is metaphysical and therefore cannot be observed directly, he is still consistent with science and is the best explanation for the origins of existence. An example (but not an analogy as CON implies) would be Gravity, which I gave before. Now, CON ask why it can't be an abstract object. I explained this already but I will explain it again. There are only two possible candidates we are aware of that can possibly fit the description of an immaterial, omnipresent, and eternal entity: either an abstract object (like a number) or a disembodied mind (or consciousness). However, abstract objects, like the number 9 cannot, cannot and ,thus, do not stand in casual relationships by virtue of its DEFINITION. Something is what it is. This is whats called the law of identity, which is a logical absolute. Since it would potentially be impossible to explain how you can get a temporal effect with a beginning from an eternal cause, I mentioned how Only an unembodied mind would stand in causality since minds are metaphysical and have free will. Now, CON is challenging this claim by arguing that the term "mind" is just a synonymous term for the term "Brain". Unfortunately, I ran out of time, so I will address this in the next round along with anything else I did not address.