Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

Pro claims to have formed a valid argument. This is a false claim and pro needs to educate himself on the rules of logic. A valid argument is one where if all the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. Pro's conclusion does not follow from his premises. Validity is just a reference to the structure of an argument. Here are some valid argument forms. If X then Y X Therefore Y X or Y Not X Therefore Y X and Y Not X Therefore Not Y X Therefore X X=Y X Therefore Y If X then Y Not X Therefore Not Y What Pro has presented is the following X Y Z Therefore A This form shows no logical connection between premises and conclusion, so this is NOT a valid argument. Soundness refers to the truth value of the premises of a valid argument. An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true. Pro does not present a valid argument, so whether his premises are true or not is irrelevant. http://www.iep.utm.edu... I would appreciate it if you did not refer to your arguments as valid or sound until you learn what these terms mean. One of my degrees is in philosophy and seeing terms like valid and sound thrown out there like marketing slogans bothers me. You accuse me of trying to pick at technical flaws instead of dealing with your argument. This shows me that your understanding of logic is so poor that you can't even recognize the fact that your argument does not lead to your conclusion and this lack of understanding led you to think you presented a good argument when you did not. I am fine with informal arguments if the connections can be easily inferred. That is not what you presented. What you presented is neither formally nor informally valid. This is a common psychological phenomenon. People lacking a skill often think they are skilled because they have no idea what it would look like if they executed the task properly. "The Dunning"Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate." https://en.m.wikipedia.org... As to your final post, you still failed to make any logical connections between your premises. You also redefined your God. You were very specific to define a god as a time traveler that can occupy our reality while still keeping it in his mind which makes no sense. That would be like me claiming to physically enter my own imagination. In your final post, you define him as a mind that can contain reality. The closest thing to a connection you have between premises and conclusion is with P4 and P5. These premises, however are not backed up by your sources. P4 is based on a source that says that the universe can be described by language. That is not the same as being functionally information, whatever that would even mean. P6 is an unverified claim. You have not presented anything that would suggest that a brain or a computer is capable of containing multiple simultaneously extant sentient minds. You also seem to think that minds can exist independent of brains, that is not something you can demonstrate, but I can demonstrate that this is unlikely. Brain injuries can result in massive changes to one's personality. If the mind exists independent of a brain, then it would not be affected by damage to the brain. The mind is clearly affected by damage to the brain in that the personality changes, therefore the mind is not independent of the brain. https://en.wikipedia.org... Your god would require the following things to be possible, things you gave no evidence for and are therefore unjustified in claiming that they are possible: Minds can exist outside of bodies Time travel is possible Minds can exist independent of reality Minds can contain multiple simultaneously self aware independent characters Minds can contain a universe of information Minds can keep consistent track of their information (laws of physics and identity) Minds can physically enter their own imagination Life is possible without a body There may be more, but all of these must be possible for your god to be possible and you demonstrated none of these. I would not debate you again, this was frustrating because you never presented an argument that could even be modified to be valid.