God is real

Keep in mind that he has agreed to share the BOP, and has even claimed that a Christian God exists. This debate will be determined by whomever presents better evidence to support their case. Pro has offered no arguments in his first round and merely posted links to support his claim. I will offer some rebuttals to some of links and and questions he posted in a later round, but for now I am going to build my case. P1: If there is no need for a God in order to explain the universe, and no empirical evidence that a God exists, it is more logical to assume that there is no God. P2: Science can explain the origins of the universe logically, and also explain how and why almost everything operates the way it does, therefore there is no need for a God. Defense of Premise 1There is not much of a defense needed for this, because it is self explanatory. This is essentially Occam's Razor. ""If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along" [1]This is in short premise 1. Until there is substantial evidence that can prove the existence of a deity, the most logical conclusion is to assume we do not need one. In times past people and cultures did not have the methods that we have involving modern science, so the best explanation for the cause and existence of the universe was a God or Gods. As time progressed we have evolved past the need for deities to explain the cause of the universe. Modern science and physics can show us how and why we came to be, and how and why the universe operates the way it does. Until there is groundbreaking evidence to show that a deity does exist, the most logical conclusion is to assume one does not exist. Defense of Premise 2This will involve multiple contentions. I will show that there is no need for a God in order to explain the cause of the universe or why the universe operates the way it does. C1The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to ExistI am going to give credit to Sargon for part of this argument. I would never have thought of some of this if he had not presented me with links and videos of Kagan and Smith who came up with some of the principles and ideas that I am about to bring forth. If it is physically possible that some states of bodies or particles are instantaneously caused to begin to exist by other such states, then this is both metaphysically possible and logically possible. [2]This is essentially saying that every state in the universe is caused by another state. So if every state of the universe is caused by a previous state , then every state can be logically explained. So the next most logical conclusion is that if every state can be logically explained and is caused by another state, then there is no state that was not caused by another state. Therefore a God or group of Gods can only exist if there is a specific state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe. [3]This goes way more in depth, if you want to read it in full check the link for one of Sargons debates or the break down by Smith. I am restricted to character limitations so I can't go do deep without breaking my limits. Essentially this ends up showing that a Theist would have to acknowledge there is a first state of time in the universe. General Relativity directly contradicts this and shows us that, every state of time is half open[4]. Since every state of time is half open then there can be no first state of time. Since theism depends on a first state of time, there can be no God. If you wanted to graph this. Every state in time must follow the big bang. If X where to represent the big bang and > where moments in time, and Y is the present it would look like this X >> >> > > > > > > > > > >Yor X < (the time of the big bang)to even take it one step further a Theist must show this God >>>>>>>>> X >>>>>>>>>YThat burden of proof lies with him however. To expound on this, the next most logical question is can something come from nothing. Lawrence Krauss breaks this down in his book a universe from nothing. We now know that nothing can produce something. In between the quarks of an atom, particles are popping in and out of existence faster than they eye can see. Empty space is spawning matter. [5] Reference 5 may appear as a video at the top right of the screen. This model won the Nobel Prize and is widely accepted. There are 3 possible types of universe in which we can live. An open flat or closed Universe. An closed universe would have positive curvature, a flat would have 0 and a open would have negative. This is all in euclidean terms. If we look at it further from this perspective, knowing what type of universe we live in would tell us the ending. If we lived in a closed, the universe would in the end re-collapse upon itself. Both an open and flat are infinite in spacial extent, the only difference is that in a flat universe the rate of expansion would slow down at some point. To sum this argument up in a nutshell we have to live in a flat universe because it is the only mathematically perfect one and it operates with the value of 0. Meaning if you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero net matter/energy. Since this is the case, we are operating under the same laws of physics which allow quantum fluctuations to happen and which could allow a universe to come from nothing. C2Morality We also know that we do not need a God in order to explain where morals come from. We often see William Lane Craig beat this argument to death. We can have objectivity without God. Anything that can promote happiness without directly effecting another human negatively can be used as an objective gauge. As well as anything that can progress us as a person or species and offer advancements. To say there is no gauge other than God is just wrong. It just depends if you look at it using ontology or epistemology. This also brings up the Euthyphro Dilema [6] in a lot of cases. I basically asks this"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God"The problem this question raises for the Christian is a double edge sword. If something is good just because God says so, what happens if he condones rape or molestation. If not he is just simply reporting what goodness is, then he is no longer the standard for goodness and goodness is the submitting to an outside standard. I will present some more points in later rounds, but for now i am gong to leave it with this until my adversary actually presents a case. In conclusion. My adversary has presented no logical or empirical evidence to support the fact there is a God. He has only posted links and asked a few questions. I on the other hand have shown logic and practicality as to how and why the universe can function without a God. I await my adversaries argument. [1] . http://math.ucr.edu...[2] Quentin Smith / . http://www.qsmithwmu.com...[3] Quentin Smith / . http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com... / Sargon : . http://www.debate.org...[4] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[5] . http://www.youtube.com...[6] . http://www.frame-poythress.org...