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

== Response == Con's rebuttals against the first two premises don't hold water. The multiverse theory and quantum vacuum fluctuation does not demonstrate that something can come from nothing or that something can create itself. The quantum vacuum is not truly "nothing" - it is a quantum vacuum, still containing space and energy. Lawrence Krauss himself, whom Con cites, says that "Nothing isn"t nothing anymore . . . nothing is really a boiling, bubbling, brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can"t see them." [1] As for the multiverse, this merely pushes the question back - for we now must ask "ok, what caused the multiverse?" We have already established that it is impossible to traverse an infinite series of past events, so there could not be innumerable universes in the past - there still had to be a first one. Ether: My opponent says they now accept that the M-M experiment does not disprove aether, and that Lorentz Ether Theory is possible, which I am happy to see. But Con shifts to Occam's Razor, claiming that it favors Einstein/Minkowskian Relativity and spacetime. But this just isn't so. BOTH possibilities are currently undetectable and theoretical. Yes, the aether is as yet undetectable (like Dark Matter), but so is spacetime! Einstein merely predicts that the 4th dimension of spacetime exists in order to explain his equations, but we have never detected spacetime any more than we have detected aether. That is why I still believe Occam's Razor favors Lorentz and A Theory - because we can either choose to accept that time really does pass as we universally perceive it, or we can choose to accept that we are all fooled and time is an illusion. The simpler explanation, by far, is the first one. Con seems confused on my point about time dilation and length contraction. I am not trying to argue whether they are real or mere distortions, I am saying it doesn't matter. Length contraction and time dilation can still occur even if there is an ultimate frame of reference, or ultimate time. The two can co-exist, and I believe they do. It's like when you see a far off ship that looks tiny - the ship is not actually small in reality, even though that is the perception your instruments (eyes) give you. There is still an ultimate frame that can decide that the ship is actually very large, even though you can perceive it. Train experiment - if Con cannot still see the paradox, I cannot think of a better way to say it. To summarize again - the whole thought experiment only works if the bolts ACTUALLY strike the train at the same time - thus confirming an ultimate frame of reference. Because the narrator told us the bolts did, indeed, strike at the same time, the observer on the train is mistaken. B Theory - again, I don't know why Con keeps saying time exists within the universe in B Theory. Time does not exist in B Theory, period. Not inside the universe, not outside the universe. Time is an illusion. Spacetime exists in B Theory, and spacetime does not allow for causes. Finally, Con writes - "if we do not accept what we observe to be the same and true we can never progress scientifically, while there is no evidence that suggests it in the first place. Namely, we need to rely on empirical evidence." I completely agree. This is why I think A Theory time is far more likely. We rely on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence universally confirms that time actually does pass and is not an illusion. Yes, we know relativity is true, but the questions don't stop there. Relativity does not mean that an ultimate frame of reference can't exist. Einstein is content to stop short and say "everything is relative, time is an illusion" but that very simply doesn't make sense. We have no more reason to believe time is fake than we have to believe we live in the Matrix. Is it possible? Technically, yes. But is it likely? No. [1]