The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists - part 2

Since my opponent has said they wish to respond later to the other premises and the claim that "No scientist ever claimed that the universe had a finite beginning" I will leave those alone for now and will wait for their more detailed response. == Response == 1) Ether/Aether. In response to my point on Lorentzian time, Con says the Michelson Morley Experiment disproved the ether. Not exactly. The Michelson-Morley failed to detect an ether, leading them to conclude it doesn't exist. Since 1887 (when M-M was performed), we have discovered many things that explain the famous result. This is where Con's appeal to Relativity Theory again backfires. In addition to time dilation, Relativity proves the effect of Length Contraction on rigid bodies in motion [1]. This is a very complex concept, but, simply put, when measuring the speed of light (c) with the equation c=distance/time, time dilation alone is not enough to explain the constancy of "c." Therefore, distance, or length, must also change. This phenomenon is called Length Contraction [2]. This is a huge factor that happened in the M-M experiment, unbeknownst to Mr. Michelson - the length of the arms on the interferometer they used shrank in the direction of its motion and therefore failed to detect Earth's absolute motion. This principle is used today in the LIGO observatory to detect gravitational waves on their modern, very large interferometer [3]. So, contrary to Con's accusation that appealing to distortions on our measuring instruments is "pointless," it is actually a well accepted scientific reality. It doesn't mean science is pointless - in most cases the distortions are so minuscule that they are irrelevant, and we can accept with high confidence what they say. But when we are measuring things of an extreme nature, like the speed of light for example, these distortions become significant and greatly effect experimental outcomes. Lorentz did not assume this to "fit his philosophy" as Con claims. Rather, Lorentz proved it happens because the equations don't make sense without it, and the LIGO observatory works because it's true [4]. 2) Train thought experiment - Con didn't really address my specific refutations of the train thought experiment but instead doubled down and merely assured us there was "no problem." So I will repeat my points here and invite Con to respond: The experiment begins with the very thing Einstein is trying to disprove - an ultimate frame of reference. When explaining the experiment, the narrator begins with "two lightening bolts strike both ends of a moving train at the same time..." Right here the narrator has confirmed absolute reality for us - two bolts did, in fact, strike at the same time. Then he goes on to explain why the person on the train observes it differently, but it matters not. The observer on the train is mistaken because the narrator has already confirmed for us that the bolts struck at the same time. In fact, this is the only way the experiment works - if the bolts actually do strike at the same time in reality. Second, the observer on the train can use math to calculate when the bolts actually struck by timing when he observed each flash and calculating how far the train travelled in between each flash. The calculations will show that his eyes are tricking him and that the bolts did, in fact, strike simultaneously. This is further proof that there likely is an ultimate frame of reference against which all things move. 3) "The whole point of this debate is practically whether time is an illusion or not, and therefore my point can not simply be bypassed by saying that empirical evidence does not agree with it." Really? I think Con is committing a bit of Special Pleading here. When detailing their point that we accept all reds are the same, Con justifies this by saying "there is no reason that it is not so." But now Con rejects me doing the same thing in relation to how we view time. In this debate, I concede it is POSSIBLE for the passage of time to be a mere illusion, just like it is possible we all live in the Matrix. But there is no reason to believe this is so. We have no reason to believe that we are all fooled and that the birthdays and anniversaries we celebrate do not actually mark the passage of time. We perceive very distinctly that time does indeed pass, and Con needs to present more than a mere possibility for us to reject such a universal maxim. 4) Finally, based on their rebuttals I still do not think Con grasps the full implications of B-Theory time. If B Theory time is true, there would be NO causes, as cause is temporal and time does not actually exist in B-Theory. Therefore, Con has misspoken when they wrote in Round 1 that "What happens within a universe has a cause, for time exists within it." Thus, Con has failed to adequately address my point that science is destroyed in B-Theory time and this debate is therefore pointless. Unless Con can provide better evidence, I maintain the A-Theory time is vastly more probable than B-Theory time, and therefore the universe needs a cause. [1] https://arxiv.org... [2] [3] https://www.ligo.caltech.edu... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...