God is a Delusion

It seems Con is not very interested in a debate since he ignores half of what I say. KCAOf the 2 premises, Con focuses almost solely on the 2nd premise, that the universe has a beginning. This is the premise I least have issue with--though I do contest it as at least unknowable. My main issue is the causality premise since it flies in the face of modern physics and relies on flimsy common sense arguments and speculation. There’s also the issue of whether the cause could be called God, which I have issues with as well. P.1 goes almost entirely undefended, and can thus be discarded.P.1 CausalityCon completely ignores the key fact that radioactive decay is random and that virtual particles in a vacuum randomly wink in and out of existence, as if from nothing. The latter is especially important because it’s the closest observation to creation ex nihilo that we can make in a world where everything must be ex materia. A vacuum does not amount to nothingness, but it has less of the material properties of the world and closer to what we could imagine existence out of nothing would look like. Since the principle of causality only holds true on the macro scale with billiard balls and everyday interactions, and fails on the quantum level with quantum particles and radioactive decay, we can easily discard the principle altogether. Con ignores the argument that the beginning of the universe would mark the beginning of spacetime which excludes the possibility of a prior cause. Cause and effect operates on the assumption that causes precede their effects in time. Since the beginning of the universe would be the beginning of time, there could be no prior state to the universe and therefore no cause. This in itself disproves God as defined in this debate, so Con’s ignoring it doesn’t just make his argument fail; it makes my case succeed. Con ignores the evidence of the plausibility of the multiverse as well as the oscillating universe theory.I don’t believe my opponent grasps what a frail guide intuition can be. Physicists are well acquainted with the many counterintuitive aspects of nature. As Brian Cox writes “Newton’s laws provide us with a very intuitive picture of the world...They take the form of equations...that allow us to predict with precision how objects move around. Inherent in the whole framework is the assumption that objects are, at any instant, located somewhere and that, as time passes, objects move smoothly around from place to place. This seems so self-evidently true that it is hardly worth commenting upon, but we need to recognize that this is a prejudice”[1A] He states, “Newton’s laws are built on intuition, and that is like a house built on sand as far as fundamental physics is concerned.”[1B] Cox then goes on to describe Clinton Davison’s and Lester Germer’s well-known slit experiment where electrons fired at at two slits with a detector on the other side behave in in ways that defy common sense prejudices. The quantum particles behaved similar to waves but they aren’t waves. The best way to think of the electron wave is a single electron--not a wave of electrons--traveling every possible path to get to the end. That’s certainly very counterintuitive, but it’s the only way to explain the interference pattern [1C]. As mentioned, other phenomena such as superposition [1D] are also counterintuitive and hard to grasp. We certainly cannot relly on intuition to understand quanum physics. Since quantum physics underlies all of the physical universe, we have to be very cautious when in the absence of direct physical evidence, e.g. when specualting about explanations of the big bang. If Con’s only support for premise 1 is intuition, then his argument is far too feeble to be accepted. P.2 Beginning of the UniverseI did respond to the thermodynamics argument with the point that different universes will have different constants and that the laws of physics we use to describe the universe as we know it don’t necessarily apply to states prior to the big bang or during the big bang singularity, or after the death of our universe. The only thing that the law shows is that what we take to be our universe had a beginning, viz. the universe as we know it had a beginning, but that doesn’t mean there was no previous existence. Moreover, if say the oscillating theory is true and the collapse of our universe results in another big bang like event, there’s simply no reason to posit that the resulting universe will have no usable energy. If the multiverse is infinite in space, then it contains infinite usable energy and therefore would never run out. Con doesn’t account for this fact. Again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports the big bang but not the proposition that all of existence is finite.As William Craig notes, the KCA also relies on the A-theory of time. He says "From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived” [2].The problem is that special relativity supports the B-Theory of time. Special relativity has much experimental support, such as tests of time dilation and the Doppler effect [3]. Con has to show why the A-Theory of time is correct.Fine-Tuning Last round I showed why alternative theories explain fine-tuning better than God. Con essentially says we should favor God over alternative theories (such as the multiverse and oscillating universe) because of other arguments he’s provided in favor of theism (the KCA and morality argument). So is he dropping the argument that fine-tuning proves God? His statements imply that God is the explanation for fine-tuning, but not because fine-tuning requires a creator; he says because other arguments prove there is a creator. However, for fine-tuning to be an argument in favor of theism, the fine-tuning of the universe has to require God. Con drops all arguments to that regard and says God is the explanation because of the KCA and moral argument, not because fine-tuning requires conscious design. It would be irresponsible of me to say there’s definitive proof of the multiverse or other theories. It’s even more groundless of Con to say there’s definitive proof of God. No one should be convinced of the multiverse, but there’s very good reason to recognize it’s plausibility and possibly probability. As stated string theory or M-theory, is an extraordinarily well built up theoretical model of particle physics and it explains the amount of dark matter found in the universe, but its testability is limited so far. I ask Con whether God, as a physical proposition, is open to testability and whether theism makes experimental predictions capable of confirmation. If not, I ask why we should favor God over the alternatives.The Moral ArgumentNo one denies that people have a sense of right and wrong and I won’t deny there being some form of morality, but it’s highly contendable whether this morality exists independent of us or not. Con’s attempt at justification is inexcusably feeble. He moreover ignores my alternative explanation of morality, which was unfortunately very brief since three arguments for God is simply too much to deal with adequately in one debate. Sources[1] The Quantum Universe: Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw [1A] P.19[1B] P.20[1C] PP. 20-24, 28-32[1D] PP.187-188[2] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184[3] http://math.ucr.edu...