It is likely that a God or gods exist

Prologue To win this argument from here, I need to prove that all of Pro's arguments are unsound, and at least one of my arguments needs to stand. RMOA Pro opines that this argument does not work, however, the only evidence he uses to substatiate this claim is that he never stated that God's are necessary beings. I believe that Pro has a misconception of necessity. Using the system 5 modal axiom, I can necessarily prove the non-existence of God. " X is possibly necessary, it is necessary in at least one possible world; hence it is necessary in all possible worlds and thus is true in all possible worlds." (1) I mentioned this last round. However, Pro completely ignores the axiom... For him to refute the argument, he would of needed to refute the axiom, which he has failed to do. Since system 5 ratifies the non-existence of God, since possibility of something in a possible world is valid as long as it is coherent. To postulate the non-existence of God is not inherently invalid, ergo, it is true in at least one possible world. The axiom does the rest from there - this fulfills my BoP. Atemporal Minds Pro states that God would exist omnitemporally, however, He would have to exist outside space-time during the creation of the universe, because creation infers a finite amount of time. " My opponent has not explained which processes require a mind to exist temporally". I stated that the mind involves processes and that processes are temporal, ergo, the refutation is invalid. KCA The only justification Pro uses for his first premise is: " namely that since nothing has no properties, it is absurd for something to pop into existence out of nothing." This is a bare assertion. He states that it can't, without any evidence to corroborate it. Hence it is an appeal to intuition fallacy. Since premise one lacks validity the entire argument fails. I attempt to show that the universe exists infinitely, therefore, there is no need for cause for the universe, because it would have always existed. First of all, I would like to postulate a theory that makes sense of wave-function collapse... The theory entails that all quantum events are fulilled. All possible quantum renditions are created within this theory. Therefore, a world with our apparent fine-tuning isn't actually that rare, since all possibile outcomes are created.(2) When the universe was contained at an infinitesimally small singularity, quantum systems assume a significantly higher precedence. Hence, an uncanny amount of universes are created. Therefore, the epstemological rarity and fine-tuning of our universe is completely explained. Since this theory is contingent on the veracity of the Big Bang, I am obliged to provide evidence for it. Big Bang Theory- "It states that the Universe was in a very high density state and then expanded." (3) The theory can be conveyed with these illustrations: Evidence for the Big Bang: "1. Redshift of Galaxies The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang. 2. Microwave Background Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct."(4)(5) Scientists examine the CMB to determine the validity of the Big Bang: The CBA is a relict of the Big Bang: The universe is filled with blackbody radiation whose temperature now is T0=27250002 K, so the frequency of the peak brightness is max160 GHz. This CMB is a relict of the "big bang" creation of the universe and reveals precise values for a host of cosmological parameters. (6) Since I have provided information for how our universe is not fine-tuned, and how the Big Bang is valid, I will now postualate why the universe is infinite. When the universe is expanding exponentially. Since this is the case, it evades critical density, as shown by this diagram: http://i1.wp.com...; /> Since it evades critical density it assumes the spatial universe type - it evades Euclidean geometry (8) - parallel lines never intersect. Results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. (10) The catalyst of expansion is due to dark energy, which is corroborated by general relativity (9)(10)(11) Hence dark energy accelerates the expansion to escape gravitational collapse, therefore, the universe is infinite. The refutation of entropy increasing for an infinite amount of time is refuted by the contingencies of it only entering existence 13.8 billion years ago... Entropy is contingent of the thermodynamic system, (12), which is contingent upon matter. Matter did not exist until after the Big Bang as shown in the diagrams before. Pro then tries to use Hilbert's Hotel to debunk infinity. Hilbert's Hotel only shows that infinity is a werid concept, not illogical. Pro throws metaphysical around as if it entails an aximoron - it doesn't. He even admits that it isn't logically impossible - "Note that Hilbert's Hotel is logically possible". Why is it absurd? Just because it does not act like other values, does not make it sophistry. Teleological Argument This argument is debunked by the Many World Interpretation of Quantum Fluctuations as aforementioned. "The theory entails that all quantum events are fulilled. All possible quantum renditions are created within this theory. Therefore, a world with our apparent fine-tuning isn't actually that rare, since all possibile outcomes are created." Ergo, the argument contains no form of abductive cogency. Religious Experiences Since there is no objective proof regarding the belief of a God (I commend that a feeling is not a valid proof, since feeling is relative (valid from every frame of reference)), the law of parisomony dictates that the non-belief-ers are more valid (13). This gives simplicity precedence, hence the negation of this argument is more valid, since the postive claim makes the assumption that God must exist. However, the people who don't feel it have a lack of assumption, hence simplicity assumes precedence, this argument is negated. Pro has not provided veracity of their feelings, he must prove the existence of God for their unwarranted assumptions to be valid. This argument is refuted. Conclusion My RMOA argument stands, since Pro failed to attack the veracity of the system 5 axiom, the Atemporal Argument stands, since the creator's mind would have to be outside space-time during the creation of the universe. KCA is refuted by the spatially flat universe, and a lack of justification for the first premise. The teleological argument is refuted, because of the Many World Interpretation - all quantum outcomes are fulfilled. Finally, the Religious Experience argument is refuted because Occam's Razor assumes the negation more valid, because it makes less assumptions, and Pro failed to prove why their beliefs are more valid than the opposers. Thanks for the argument, but I urge a Con vote. Vote Con! 1 http://tinyurl.com... 2 http://tinyurl.com... 3 http://tinyurl.com... 4 http://tinyurl.com... 5 http://tinyurl.com... 6 http://tinyurl.com... 7 http://tinyurl.com... 8 http://tinyurl.com... 9 http://tinyurl.com... 10 http://tinyurl.com... 11 http://tinyurl.com... 12 http://tinyurl.com... 13http://tinyurl.com...