God exists

The God pro has to showAgain, Pro has to show that God exists, and then show that God has these properties.1. Intelligent2. All powerful3. Sustains the universe in existence.OmnipotenceMy opponent claims that my reconstruction of his argument in categorical terms doesn't accurately represent his argument, and uses this example to show whyP1 If a cup has a chip, THEN it is ruinedP2 The cup has a chipC The cup is ruinedP1* Whatever has a chip is ruinedP2 The cup has a chipC The cup is ruinedBut his second argument should be formulated:P1 Any cup that has a chip is ruinedP2 This cup has a chipC This cup is ruined.So it is accurate to represent his argument as:P1: Any universe that has a fine tuner has an all-powerful fine tunerP2: The universe has a fine tunerC: The universe's fine tuner is all powerfulNow either way you look at this argument, whether it be his original formulation or my reconstruction, I've attacked the first premise.Does the universe having a fine tuner automatically mean that fine tuner is omnipotent?I've given arguments and shown that it only means that the creator is "most powerful" in the sense of being more powerful than anything in the universe. However, I've also argued that most powerful is not necessarily the same as all powerful.My opponent states, "Power is determined by what one is capable within the limits of testing...God transcends these limits by manipulating the very laws that govern these limits."However, I disagree. Power is the ability to actualize certain potentials. If there's the potential for a universe to exist which requires 200 units of power to make, then if I am omnipotent, I can do this.However, if I am "most" powerful, in the sense of being more powerful than any actual thing in existence, I can't necessarily create a 200 unit of power universe. For example, if I only had 100 units of power. My power is limited, yet still greater than anything else's power.So just because something creates the universe, this doesn't mean it's omnipotent. It only means that it is most powerful.In short, God doesn't need to be all-powerful to create the universe. He just needs to be powerful enough to create it. If I need to lift a very heavy stone, I don't need to be all powerful to lift it. Just powerful enough.To put it very shortly, just because God creates the universe, this doesn't mean he is all powerful.SustainingMy opponent claims that the way that God sustains the universe in existence is that he is both the efficient and material cause of the universe.However, there is a problem with this once again.Suppose I were to create a painting on a piece of human flesh. The flesh came from Bob who skinned his arm and gave me the skin to paint a picture on it for him.In this case, Bob is both the efficient cause and the material cause of the stretched out piece of skin. However, does Bob need to continue in existence for the piece of skin to exist? Absolutely not!The reason is that the skin is a separate thing from Bob now. As I have shown, just because X is both the efficient and material cause of Y, this doesn't mean that Y is a "part" of X or is dependent upon X for its existence.So I can happily concede that yes God could possibly be both the material and efficient cause of the universe. But no this doesn't mean that the universe needs God to continue in existence. God could drop out of existence, and since the universe is a new substance, it could easily continue in existence without him.My opponent states, "This is a problem, and the solution is that the material cause IS the efficient cause."Either way it's a problem. The solution is that we don't need a God for the universe to begin in existence, or to persist in existence.Conclusion so farEven if my opponent's arguments are sound, he still has not met his burden.The FTAMy opponent ignores my arguments that the terms "finely tuned" are merely euphemisms to easily lead to "fine tuner." In other words, it sounds snappy and rhetorically nice. I've already pointed out that life, or something interesting, could seemingly have came about in ways other than the way it has. My opponent needs to show that our universe is absolutely the *only* way for *anything* interesting to come about. Not that it is the only way for this particular instance of life and interesting things. As I've pointed out, we know notoriously little about the beginning of the universe. We are still taking baby steps. Thus, to make an argument with our current scientific knowledge is similar to saying creationism is true because we can't see how life could come about any other way. I shall also repeat: My opponent needs to show that we are in the scientific position to be able to tell the difference between real fine tuning, and just the appearance of fine tuning. Until he does so, his argument can't get off the ground. I am not appealing to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance is when someone claims a positive statement because of the lack of knowledge. I'm not saying that due to our lack of knowledge that there is *not* a fine tuner. I'm saying that due to our lack of knowledge we can't know *yet* if there is a fine tuner. Why should we assume that there is a fine tuner? Why not continue to search for naturalistic explanations for the so called "fine tuning" of the universe? I should like to point out that the exact same arguments were made before evolution was discovered. To ask my opponent again, why does he think that this is any different? How can he be sure we won't discover a non-conscious guiding force which has caused the universe to support life? Another point to make is this. Assume that in order for life to occur, we must choose a random number between 2 and 5. However, there's an infinite amount of numbers between 2 and 5! So the number of universes that could support life in the way that this one does (remember, there might be other ways too, we just dont know) is infinite! The KCA Why can't the cause be a necessary naturalistic cause? Why can't the cause be something like an impersonal substance, which randomly generated the universe? My opponent accuses me of committing the fallacy of special pleading, but this is not the case. I gave reasons why the universe coming into existence is completely different than things we see around us coming into existence. The universe did not begin in time, and is not inside of an limited to the constraints of the universe. So why should we assume it has a cause as well? Imagine you are working on a car. You know that after a certain amount of time you need to add more oil. However, what if the steering goes one day? They're similar, in that they're both mechanical problems with your car, but will adding oil fix it? Maybe. Maybe not. We aren't justified in assuming adding oil will fix your steering. It is the same with the universe. Just because we see everything around us which is inside of time and inside the universe have a cause, does this mean something which is not inside of time and not inside of the universe will have a cause? Maybe. Maybe not. My opponent also claims that denying the PSR leads to crazy consequences. He says that it's then possible that a football could just exist without a cause. He is perfectly correct. However, we know that footballs typically do have a cause. This doesn't mean that they *must* have a cause. Just that they do. My opponent needs to prove that things "coming into existence" require a cause. He also must show how this controversial assumption applies to the universe. He is taking the rules of an apple and applying it to an orange. The universe coming into existence is completely dissimilar than objects we see around us coming into existence. He is misapplying a general rule to a special case it is not meant to apply to. This is called the fallacy of sweeping generalization. Will adding oil fix the steering on my truck? Time My opponent claims that A series of time must be true because it's prima facie true. But remember, the desk in front of you seems hard and solid, and in reality is actually mostly empty space. Appearances are often times wrong. Another important point to make is that A-series of time is incompatible with the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. If the past does not exist, how can our present measurements affect the past, as this experiment shows they do? [1] We also have the Wheeler De-Witt equation, which unites Quantum Mechanics with Relativity. But an important note to make is that the Wheeler De-Witt equation explains reality tenselessly. In other words, it assumes B-theory. Since the Wheeler De-Witt equation is the best explanation for uniting QM and relativity, and is only true if B-theory is true, this is another point for B-theory. [1]