Resolved: God Exists

My opponent seems to have a poor understanding of the Occam's Razor principle. The Occam's Razor principle states that if an object or being X that is not acceptable to the general understanding of nature need not exist and its doings can be explained by something compatible with the general understanding of nature, then X most likely does not exist. Thus, the Occam's Razor principle still stands with X as God, since the creation of the universe is explained by quantum fluctuations. [1][2]Rebuttals Life & Non-LifePro states that "life cannot come from non-life". Therefore, Pro is implying that life was created by a living being. And, by the context of this debate, that being is God. Hence, from this I conclude that Pro is implying God is an intelligent, omnipotent living being. First, I would like to rebut that there is no evidence whatsoever of living organisms existing before 13.798 billion years ago. Pro is stating that a living organism created the universe. The universe was created (13.798 ± 0.037) x 109 years ago, i.e. 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. [3] According to most modern biologically accepted theories, life originated due to a process known as abiogenesis. [4] The origin of life is dated by most paleobiologists to be 3.48 x 109 years ago, i.e. 3.48 billion years ago. [5][6] The idea that a living organism created the universe is unacceptable by the laws of science. My opponent has not found any way to support the claim that a living organism could have existed 13.798 x 109 years ago; thus, I conclude that God is not a living organism. Burden of ProofPro accuses that I have not fulfilled my BoP in various places in the debate. I shall now point out where there is a lack of proof in Pro's arguments. How do you prove that God is eternal? Pro keeps saying that God is eternal and beyond the universe, but there is a sheer lack of proof with regards to these claims. These claims, without any proof whatsoever, are void as they are not supported by adequate arguments. Pro also states that God cannot be limited by human logic; then this is the wrong debate. Rule 2 clearly says that you cannot say God is beyond logic. The God of this scenario is limited by logic. Omnipotence ParadoxMy point is, the same way the existence of God implies the existence of omnipotence, the existence of omnipotence implies the existence of God. If omnipotence doesn't exist, then God can't even be conceived to exist and vice versa. Pro has argued based on the vice versa argument, so I shall rebut them thus. Limiting one's power is considered an action. Action is defined as "the bringing about of an alteration." [7] If a being is omnipotent, they should be able to conceivably limit their power; yet, that limitation of power renders the lack of omnipotence. It is not a "word game". To prove it is not, I shall define game: a physical or mental activity or contest that people do for entertainment. [7] Thus, this is not a word game and is a valid paradox. Penrose Ratio and Quantum Fluctuations Penrose’s ratio states the high unlikelihood of the proposition that the universe came from chance. Pro’s conclusion was that the only other logical explanation was design, since there was no proof for necessity. Later, Pro claimed that the Big Bang and uncaused quantum fluctuations as well as the inherent existence of energy (which has been proven; energy always exists in the quantum vacuum, and is eternal) were drawn from the argument of necessity, which has no evidence. Now, I will show you how quantum fluctuations, and hence, necessity, was the cause of creation. Pro’s Rebuttals 1. How can quantum mechanics create time and space? -> The quantum vacuum, with a finite, measurable amount of energy, remains permanently existent [8] and is, in terms of particle physics, practically "eternal". [9] All quantum fluctuations emerge from the permanently existent quantum vacuum; hence, even without the existence of the proper space-time continuum, these fluctuations can provoke a reaction that can create the Big Bang. 2. Similarly, the only way you can prove the existence of God is by observation, since it is scientific evidence required. But Pro and I agreed it was impossible to 100% prove or disprove anything; so the logical option matters.3. But since the energy is generated from the quantum vacuum, the existence of the universe need not be taken into consideration. The quantum vacuum is, in essence, "nothing". Yet, the minusculely small levels of preexistent energy in the vacuum can expand to produce further matter and energy. [10]4. Why do the laws of physics need an origin? The function of the universe is random and governed by entropy and disorder. [11][12]ConclusionI have answered all Pro's rebuttals in relation to quantum fluctuations. I have also presented proof of the Big Bang. Now, with Occam's Razor, since God is more likely not the creator of life or the universe, I say that there is proof of the universe existing out of necessity (by Pro's definition). Now, by Penrose's ratio, the flipped version can apply to both design and necessity (once more, I say that it is Pro who called the inherent existence of energy "necessity"; I personally would ascribe it to a fourth category; nonetheless, I shall follow Pro's definitions). Once more, I apply Occam's Razor, that says, " if an object or being X that is not acceptable to the general understanding of nature need not exist and its doings can be explained by something compatible with the general understanding of nature, then X most likely does not exist." As the creation of the universe is explained by natural law, I conclude saying that the percentage of possibility (by Penrose's ratio) falls on the hypothesis of a designer's existence. [1]MessagePro must waive Round 5 and, therefore, must not post anything related to this debate. I recommend Pro either forfeit the next round or simply post a message conveying forfeiture and nothing else. Rebuttals and arguments cannot be posted in the comments section. References[1] "Simplicity." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)[2] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2008). ISBN-0-553-80537-1. [3] http://www.esa.int... [4] Stearns, Beverly Peterson; Stearns, S. C.; Stearns, Stephen C. (2000). Watching, from the Edge of Extinction. Yale University Press. p. 1921. ISBN 978-0-300-08469-6. [5] Noffke, Nora; Christian, Daniel; Wacey, David; Hazen, Robert M. (8 November 2013). "Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures Recording an Ancient Ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 Billion-Year-Old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia". Astrobiology (journal) 13 (12): 1103–24. [6] Schopf, JW; Kudryavtsev, AB; Czaja, AD; Tripathi, AB. (2007). Evidence of Archean life: Stromatolites and microfossils. Precambrian Research 158:141–155. [7]The New Oxford Dictionary of English[8] Dittrich, Walter; Gies, H.(2000). Probing the quantum vacuum: perturbative effective action approach. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-540-67428-4.[9] Jean Letessier, Johann Rafelski (2002). Hadrons and Quark-Gluon Plasma. Cambridge University Press. p. 37 ff. ISBN 0-521-38536-9.[10] Krauss, Lawrence M. (2012). A Universe From Nothing. Simon & Schuster, New York. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8.[11] Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics Press, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3, pp. 14–15, 214.[12] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.