God Exists

I'm going to be honest. I forgot about this, and now i'm responding at midnight and only have a few hours left. this isn't going to be my best stuff. My opponent attacks my arguing from a mono universal standpoint. There is no concrete evidence beyond conjecture for an infinite number of universes. there is certainly little to no evidence for a Grahams number of universes in which for life could exist. Within the singular universe we know to exist the fundamental forces had one and only one chance, the beginning of the universe, to be exactly correct. I did run out of characters before I could get to the information content rebuttal. 1. A deity is whatever man Deifies. if a higher intelligence created life then that higher intelligence would be what we call "God." and thus would exist. Natural selection and reusing parts in no way counters my argument. If I designed a machine that could serve multiple functions I would utilize that machine where it can be applied rather than making a new type of machine. Natural selection is also a proven method through which life adapts to a changing environment. It does not account for original causality nor is it's existence being contested. This will also flow to the next point. As had been stated multiple times. that portion of my argument regarding tensed facts was a staging ground for later arguments and was not intended to immediately refute your case. If the universe is finite it is not only logical to ask what came before but necessary to understand it's origins. what caused this first moment in time? (think back to the timelessness argument) what came before? asking what is North of the North Pole is not the same as this. I can tell you what is North of the North Pole. Nothing. There is no more North if you travel any farther in the direction that once was "North" you are now traveling South. and I know what causes this. I do not however know in the absence of a God figure what caused the Universe and this first original cause is not meaningless. My opponent attempts to compare dropping things on Earth and seeing them fall to the ground then assuming that things will also fall to the ground in space, to believing that all things have a cause. These are not in any way similar because all things having a cause is a constant. if there is a first moment in time then we have to ask what caused this first moment to appear. He also does not justify why time is needed for something to have a cause. he simply states that it is then uses this to justify disregarding what we know about everything that has ever existed. A timeless God existing separate from time and times tensed facts remains the best explanation. this unmoved mover. If the Universe is Finite. if it has a moment when it came into existence then there is a time before it. even if time as we know it did not exist before this point, what caused it to come into existence? An important distinction between A and B series of time is that in the A series there is an objective real time. in B series there is subjective illusory time. if a second is illusory then it is a second only if you perceive it to be so. if a second is objective and real, it is a second regardless of how you perceive it. An reference frame is an integral part of relativity. from my previous post: If we have absolute simultaneity and a Minkowski spacetime, then we can define a privileged frame as the inertial frame whose simultaneity relation matches the absolute simultaneity relation. But nothing that was said so far guarantees that any inertial frame has a simultaneity relation that matches our absolute simultaneity relation. Suppose, for instance, that there are two points, a and b, that are absolutely simultaneous but where b is in the forward light-cone of a. Then not only will there be no inertial frame according to which a and b are simultaneous, but there won't be any foliation by spacelike hypersurfaces. My opponents next argument goes back to perception of time. if I began to accelerate at the speed of light and time dilation began, and I do this until it's the year 2025, if I do this I may only age 2 years (This number is just for example purposes and is likely not the actual number) but it would still be the year 2025 I would not be time traveling to the year 2020. time is still objective and presentism is upheld This was super rushed but it's my own fault for not thinking about it.