God Exists

http://www.youtube.com... Pro’s rebuttal can be found in the comments section. C1) Argument from incoherence Pro basically asserts that God is ‘great’ *subjectively*, but since God’s existence is contingent on his immense greatness, and existence is objective, God would have to be objectively great. Pro concedes that greatness is inherently subjective. His attributes of creator, etc. do not affirm objective greatness, as cited in the definition. I present an observation that none of your arguments defend objective greatness, thus you have not defended a God of this definition. Pro just entirely concedes this contention, and his argument is basically “God can exist if he’s not great”, which is flawed since God is, by definition, immensely great, and for a being x to exist, each of x’s properties must be possible. Thus, Pro’s refutation is flawed since it drops the premises and questions the conclusion--this is a logically sound argument, where the following premises entail the conclusion “God doesn’t exist”. 1. If God cannot be great, he doesn’t exist. 2. God cannot be great. This automatically entail that an objectively great God, as defined, does not exist, thus Pro virtually concedes this argument. C2) Impossibility of a caused universe A causal relationship between A and B implies that A caused B to exist over a period of time. The only way the causal relationship can be equalized is via. simultaneous causality, and it is unlikely that A can cause B simultaneously, since a standard relationship of simultaneous causation is B causing itself [1]. Thus, for anything to coherently ‘happen’, the passage of time is naturally required [2][3], and causality is an occurrence of an event, e.g. the causality of the universe. A universe cannot have been coherently caused sans time. Furthermore, even simultaneous causality would require unbreakable principles to ‘bind’ the event, allowing it to coherently occur [4]. “In the actual quantum experiment, the knowledge of the future and past of the particle merely gives a 90% probability of guessing it. If the universe was truly a block, it would have been practically 100%.” The second statement is a bare assertion, and must be justified, or it would commit ipse dixit [5]. “Special relativity does not imply the future exist, merely that what is perceived at the present can be warped based on relativistic speeds. It is similar (yet completely different) from how you can get lag on sonar, consequence if an object is moving quick relative to the speed of sound, the your image of it becomes distorted. Also two different observers with sonar may see different images based on their positions and speed. Of course these unusual effects can be attributed to lag of the sonar and doesn't require the future of the object existing out to infinity. It is also possible to attribute lag to time itself. This lagging of time doesn't mean that the future exist, it merely means that what is the present can lag behind because of relativistic speeds and two observers may not see two events happening in the same order.” No evidence is given for this ‘lag’ of time, which would be incoherent if the passage of time is illusory. We know that the passage of time is mental, since we can change how quickly we perceive it via. drugs like psilocybin [10], and adrenaline [11]. It’s also dependent on how old you are, younger people experience time slower than older people [12]. It’s reasonable to conclude that the passage of time is a creation of the mind itself. By Occam’s razor, we should accept it. We have established the perception of time is mental, it’s simpler to state there is nothing more to the perception of time than proposing an actual passage of time that the mind interprets. The former posits no unnecessary entities. Furthermore, evidence from physics concludes that time is probably emergent, wherein time is ontologically static [13]. C3) Omniscience is an incoherent property Pro here claims God’s knowledge is based on present events. They’re basically claiming God’s knowledge is analogous to a Laplacian demon (a hypothetical demon which knows the present state of every particle in existence can determine the future and figure out the past [6]). Science shows this type of knowledge is impossible. Lord Kelvin pointed out that according to the second law of thermodynamics information would have to be lost eventually [7]. Furthermore, modern quantum mechanics is indeterministic, meaning knowing the current state of particles won't get you anywhere in the future. There are certain states which are formed probabilistically [8]. There is a philosophical problem with this. God can only have knowledge of future events in virtue of the present. Pro is arguing that God created the physical universe. Therefore, the first state of the universe wasn’t always in existence (otherwise omniscience would be incoherent), but this implies God wasn’t always omniscient. Prior to the universe, God would only know that he wants the universe to come into existence. If I am going to create a house and have all the blueprints in my mind, do I have knowledge of an actual house? Of course not. But omniscience entails that God should know everything--even that which doesn’t exist. For example, I’m not eating a pizza right now, so God can’t ‘know’ I am, but he is supposed to ‘know’ everything epistemically by omniscience. The same problem can be derived via. epistemic nihilism, and Munchausen trilemma [9], viz. nothing can be known for certain without being logically fallacious, thus ‘knowledge’, in nature, is incoherent. The above analogy simply conveys this. Thus the Laplacian theory of omniscience is false. Pro drops Occam’s razor. Pro’s case--Cosmological argument As demonstrated, eternalism entails that nothing can coherently ‘begin’ to exist. But Pro misses the point of time and physical laws. Even if causality is not bound by time and physical laws, the universe would not require a cause sans time and physical constraint, according to models such as the zero-energy universe model [14]. Crystallization My case still stands, and Pro’s doesn’t. The resolution is negated. Pro also drops Occam’s razor and fails to affirm ‘greatness’. Thus, vote Con. Thanks for a fun debate. Pro *must* waive R4. 1. http://www.atheismandthecity.com... 2. Michael Tooley. Time and Causation, p 158. 3. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 4. Ibid. 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.informationphilosopher.com... 7. Ibid. 8. http://www.informationphilosopher.com... 9. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 10. http://dx.doi.org... 11. http://www.livescience.com... 12. http://www.bbc.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. See video.