The Christian God Exists

Like he says, he never answers the fine-tuning argument. He only raises the question about whether or not we're in a computer stimulation. Again, let's look at Occam's razor. As the number of assumptions the atheist needs to make continues to climb, we're now having to assume we live in the Matrix to deny god. Either there is an unmoved mover that made sure the forces were met, or we assume without evidence, that we live in a stimulation. Also, This argument was never intended to prove the Christian god. This was phase one which was to provide evidence for A god rather than a specific god. That comes in phase two. I want to dedicate most of this round to free will. If I don't get to something else I haven't forgotten. Advances in modern physics support the existence of free will on a small scale. David Harrison from the University of Toronto explains in 2011 why modern physics is a preferable lens for viewing the discussion of free will, stating that [Einstein, Rosen "Bell's Theorem," http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca... This document was written in February 1999 by David M. Harrison, Department of Physics, University of Toronto 03/17/06.] "Classical physics provided a mirror that reflected only the objective structure of the human being who was the observer. There is no room in this scheme for his mental process which is thus regarded as separate or as a mere 'epiphenomenon' of the objective processes. ... [Through the] mirror [of quantum physics] the observer sees 'himself' both physically and mentally in the larger setting of the universe as a whole. ... More broadly one could say that through the human being, the universe is making a mirror to observe itself." --" As a result, Tom Hartsfield writes in 2013 that Bell"s inequality, an advancement in the mathematics of modern physics, [Quantum Mechanics, 4-3-2013, "Quantum Mechanics Supports Free Will," No Publication, http://www.realclearscience.com... Tom Hartsfield, 2013] His famous theorem, Bell's inequality, is an incredibly profound statement. This relatively simple mathematical proof, when applied to experimental results, gives us a choice: We must either give up determinism or give up the existence of an objective reality explained by science and measurable by humans with instruments. (You can read the gory details about the experiments here.)So if experiments on quantum phenomena are reliable, then Bell concludes that determinism is false. Most physicists agree.Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very moment of the Big Bang. Free will is preserved. These experiments are reliable as Koch writes that on the quantum level, "The deathblow to the Newtonian dream"or nightmare, in my opinion"was the celebrated quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927. In its most common interpretation, it avers that any particle, say, a photon of light or an electron, cannot have both a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time. If you know its speed accurately, its position is correspondingly ill defined, and vice versa. Heisenberg"s uncertainty principle is a radical departure from classical physics. It replaces dogmatic certainty with ambiguity. Consider an experiment that ends with a 90 percent chance of an electron being here and a 10 percent chance of it being over there. If the experiment were repeated 1,000 times, on about 900 trials, give or take a few, the electron would be here; otherwise, it would be over there. Yet this statistical outcome does not ordain where the electron will be on the next trial. Albert Einstein could never reconcile himself to this random aspect of nature. It is in this context that he famously pronounced, "Der Alte wuM6;rfelt nicht" (the Old Man, that is, God, does not play dice). The universe has an irreducible, random character. If it is a clockwork, its cogs, springs and levers are not Swiss-made; they do[es] not follow a predetermined path. Physical determinism has been replaced by the determinism of probabilities. Nothing is certain anymore." On a larger level, characterizing the motion of the atmosphere. The solution predicted by his computer program varied widely when he entered starting values that differed by only tiny amounts. This is the hallmark of chaos: infinitesimally small perturbations in the equations" starting points lead to radically different outcomes. In 1972 Lorenz coined the term "butterfly effect" to denote this extreme sensitivity to initial conditions: the beating of a butterfly"s wings creates barely perceptible ripples in the atmosphere that ultimately alter the path of a tornado elsewhere. Remarkably, such a butterfly effect was found in celestial mechanics, the epitome of the clockwork universe. Planets majestically ride gravity"s geodesics, propelled by the initial rotation of the cloud that formed the solar system. It came as a mighty surprise, therefore, when computer modeling in the 1990s demonstrated that Pluto has a chaotic orbit, with a divergence time of millions of years. Astronomers cannot be certain whether Pluto will be on this side of the sun (relative to Earth"s position) or the other side 10 million years from now! If this uncertainty holds for a planet with a comparatively simple internal makeup, moving in the vacuum of space under a sole force, gravitation, [it has implications regarding] what does it portend for the predictability of a person, a tiny insect or an itsy-bitsy nerve cell, all of which are swayed by countless factors? All of this leads Dr. Michio Kaku noting in 2013 that, Michio Kaku, 2013 "Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate," Big Think, http://bigthink.com... "So what does that mean for free will? It means in some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history. There is always the wildcard. There is always the possibility of uncertainty in whatever we do. So when I look at myself in a mirror I say to myself what I'm looking at is not really me. It looks like me, but it"s not really me at all. It"s not me today now. It"s me a billionth of a second ago because it takes a billionth of a second for light to go from me to the mirror and back. This is furthered by the work of, Michio Kaku, 2013 "Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate," Big Think, http://bigthink.com... "Here's the rub: the Nobel prize winning condensed matter physicist Philip Anderson, [who] wrote a famous article entitled "More is Different" in 1972 where he defended the view that the laws and principles he studied as a condensed matter physicist were emergent and there are plenty of phenomena exhibited by macroscopic systems whose existences cannot be predicted directly from an underlying, microscopic theory. In other words, the information obtained from the whole can"t be explained by the sum of information from each individual element. Simply put, just because matter in the universe- including all atomic constituents in the human body- obeys certain physical laws, it really doesn't follow that the choice itself must also be bound by the same laws. There is a huge gap here which is not explained by this line of reasoning. This is simply bad logic. To summarize the basics of this argument, Stephen Cave writes for the Atlantic in June of 2016 that Stephen Cave, 6-10-2016, "Free Will Exists and Is Measurable," Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com... "On a different note, Alexander and some other commentators point out that quantum mechanics demonstrates that the world is not straightforwardly deterministic. In this, they are right: quantum indeterminacy implies that physical reality has an irreducibly probabilistic nature. Other readers have pointed out that even classical physics does not always allow us to accurately predict what will happen: According to chaos theory, any of an incalculably huge number of tiny differences in initial conditions can lead to radically different outcomes. (At least, that"s the excuse weather forecasters use for getting it wrong.) This too is a fair point." All in all, current science suggests that because of the inherent unpredictability of small particles and the huge array of permutations surrounding any single event, science supports the notion of free will. Also, God may know all possible futures but does not have a hand in forcing one of them. Thus free will can continue to exist even with His Omniscience. Furthermore, It is far more benevolent to allow us the freedom to do good or evil rather than turn humanity into a species of drones. I would rather deal with evil than be a drone. While everything has a cause, when you add biological beings with sapience the equation changes. Suddenly there's a rogue variable. Something that can be its own cause reacting to other causes in a way that is determined by the sapient entity. Skipping to arguments. God being omnibenevolent is not a limitation it is a chosen behavior. God can commit evil. He chooses not to thus making him benevolent. God may permit some natural evil because it challenges people to think about God for the first time. For many people, the first prayers or thoughts of God came as the result of some tragedy. When our present lives are in jeopardy or in question, we find ourselves thinking about the possibility of a future life. I will address the rest of your arguments in my next post. I'm using the last of my ch-