Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

Thanks Pro. I was simply following the rules for the round structure that dictated that I must use round 3 to focus on CONTINUING MY ARGUMENT...rebuttals were simply permitted. The rules also dictate that this round (4) be used particularly for rebuttals, so Pro's complaint about "My opponent does not address my refutation from Round 3, what-so-ever here" ignores the rules. Also, I will be refuting ALL of Pro's unfounded arguments this round, so Pro can no longer complain about it, and Pro will actually have to demonstrate god's existence, the creator of a universe that wasn't created, instead of supplying upwards of eight different logical "syllogisms" to prove his point. Think about how you would prove any claim of existence to a friend...would it require eight different logical arguments or graphic organizers? I don't think so, because when something exists, you can simply demonstrate it to your friend...regardless, I will point out the flaws and falsehoods of Pro's multiple attempts to reason god into existence. To review. Pro has attempted: 1. The Modal Ontological Argument, which asserts a "maximally great being" 2. Anslem's Ontological Argument, which asserts a "greatest possible being" 3. The Kalam Cosmological argument, which asserts that all things begin to exist except for god. 4. Monistic Idealism, which claims that reality is a construct of the brain. 5. Solipsism, which also claims that reality is a construct of the brain. 6. Substance dualism, which ignores the mind's contingency on matter (brain), treating its contingency separate from matter. 7. Property dualism, which separates mental properties from physical properties, thus ignoring mental properties' contingency on physical properties. 8. An analogy that involves feeling pain, and asserting that this pain is from the mind interacting with reality without assigning agency to the physical matter/properties of the brain. What's nice, is that in the round where the focus was supposed to be the continuation of my argument and rebuttals were merely permitted, I addressed ALL of these flawed arguments. On to Pro's round 3 logical arguments. First, I really liked the Stephen Hawking video...I don't really see how this demonstrates the existence of god, but good video anyway. Pro attempts the teleological argument for god: "1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. 2. Teleology exists. 3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists." My response: The 2nd premise has not been demonstrated. Teleology is the idea that the material world/universe was designed with purpose. Since there is no evidence of a designer, and we know objects that appear ordered can exist without a purposeful organizer behind them, we have no reason imply purposiveness. For example, since Pro asserted that the "Water Cycle...[has] purpose and [is] thus teleological by nature," I'll use a snowflake. Think of a snowflake. We know snowflakes are a result of the water cycle, which pre-existed this human idea of purpose. Snowflakes appear to be arranged symmetrically and logically, because they are six-fold radially symmetrical; this is a quite complex shape that appears to be organized purposefully. However, it is well understood that the snowflake is a result of the naturally occurring water cycle. So simply because things may appear to be purposefully arranged, it doesn't mean that they are. Is the symmetry of a snowflake proportional? Then ask yourself, was there some "purposeful designer" of the snowflake? The fact that natural processes like the water cycle can result in the order seen in snowflakes illustrates the lack of a need for a "purposeful organizer" (god) when discussing order in the universe. So, without any demonstration of a designer, there is no need to accept premise 2 of the TA, because we have no reason to believe that there is a designer, let alone a purposeful designer; things can just exist without this human constructed idea of purpose. Pro continues with equating "gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds" to the biblical creation account: "The universe had a beginning in time." My response: Time began AT the beginning of the universe [+1,-1], thus the universe's beginning was not IN TIME, rather it began AT TIME's beginning. Without the universe, there is no time. Also, ascribing a temporal concept like "cause" before time is nonsensical, because "cause" requires time to happen; no time, no cause. I reject the idea the universe was caused by god, because of the temporal inadequacies of such a claim...and no god has been demonstrated. I also maintain that the Hugh Ross quote is flawed, because it presupposes the existence of higher dimensions, which, despite string theory's popularity, has no experimental evidence; higher dimensions have not been demonstrated. Without Pro demonstrating "another time dimension," we have no reason to believe there is such a thing. I've also provided first round how the universe could come into existence without excess time dimensions. Pro then attempted to attack my scientific understanding of the origins of our universe: "The only issue here is that this theory has no room for universal exspansion." My response: Nope. My argument was when there was no matter/space/time that there were quantum fluctuations where time and space fluctuated in and out of existence, and that this nothing state is unstable, so energy is inevitable. This still allows for the expansion of space, because this fluctuating field is itself inflationary given the proportion of energy to space. At the big bang, space was really tiny, so even the smallest of energy existing from quantum fluctuations, at the big bang, would proportionally be massive compared to the extremely small space; this is the inflation field. http://aether.lbl.gov... Pro also complains: "The theory also imposes that the universe can last forever on the basis that there is little to zero energy used." My response: The fact that the universe has zero total energy speaks more to the lack of the curvature of space throughout the universe. Energy is still used, it's just that all of the (+) energy used, in the form of matter, is cancelled out by all of the (-) gravity by way of gravitational force. So a zero energy universe does not imply that the universe will last forever, because energy is still being used, it's just cancelled out by all of the negative energy. Pro presents some numbers from Stephen Hawking that appear to be like the numbers I have provided for the zero energy universe. The problem is, the numbers that I provided were merely hypothetical, used as a teaching aid in the description of how zero can be represented by a set; my numbers and Stephen Hawking's numbers are unrelated. In a zero energy universe, energy still "moves," it's just that the total energy of the universe is zero, because of the interplay between matter and gravity. I also assert that we know that the universe is expanding thanks to red shifts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... This idea of equilibrium is about entropy within thermodynamic systems. That would be explained by the (+) positive energy component, matter, of the zero energy universe. The zero energy universe DOES NOT violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, and all of the laws apply to matter, which is part of the zero energy universe in which we live. Pro continues his assault on my science: "if the matter in the universe equalled the gravity then there would be no growth and we would be moving toward a single point in the universe back to a singlularity and the Big Crunch." My response: Here's growth with respects to the zero energy universe... Here's the big bang from quantum fluctuations [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1]. Here's expansion from the inflation field [+10,-10] Here's the acceleration of expansion due to dark energy, which is part of (+) matter/energy [+100000,-100000]. Notice that all of these sets equal zero, but the "growth" of (+) matter still occurs. Pro continues: "I believe that God caused the Big Bang and hence the universe." My response: This has two problems. One, as mentioned before, "cause" requires time thus an intelligent being would need time to exist and then even more time to cause the universe without stative time to do it. Two, without a MECHANISTIC explanation of HOW god caused the big bang, one can't assume a causer; if you don't know how it was done mechanistically, then how do you know that it was even done? Hey Pro, how can something exist without stative time? About the MOA Pro says: "My opponent did not refute the argument here what-so-ever, but simply resorted to a simple refusing to acknowledge my argument." Let me use the MOA to prove something that has no demonstration of its existence: 1. It is possible that a flagoiganberry exists. 2. If it is possible that a flagoiganberry exists, then a flagoiganberry exists in some possible world. 3. If a flagoiganberry exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a flagoiganberry exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a flagoiganberry exists in the actual world, then a flagoiganberry exists. 6. Therefore, a flagoiganberry exists. Without me demonstrating a flagoiganberry, we have no reason to accept premise 1. Pro's god is NO DIFFERENT than a flagoiganberry. Like you might ask, "What is a flagoiganberry?" I would ask "What is God?" So, I'm not refusing to acknowledge Pro's argument...he's refusing to demonstrate his claims. Pro continues: "We can see that the Greatest Possible Being is self explanitory and doesn't exactly need an explination within itself" My response: Just like a flagoiganberry? I'm out of characters. Next round I will finish the litany of rebuttals that I must address, and conclude my argument. I reject the god that Pro has not demonstrated.