God probably does not exist.

Ave An argument is logically valid if the truth of the premises entail the conclusion. If P1, P2, P3, P4 of my argument are true, then C1 and C2 are also true. I claimed in R3 that Con does not dispute the logical validity of the argument. In Con’s R3, he says that he has attacked the logical validity of the argument by disputing that the universe had no beginning. This isn’t an objection to the logical validity of the argument! This is an objection to the soundness of the argument. Besides, it’s a straw man argument anyway. I have never argued that the universe did not have a beginning. I argued in my opening statement that my argument is consistent with a finite universe. “The argument I gave is consistent with standard Big Bang cosmology. The universe still had a beginning in the sense that every state of time must be less than 13.9 billion years old, the age of the universe. In algebraic terms, if T represents a state of time, then every T < 13.9 billion years ago. I think this explanation will solve any questions about how my view of the universe is compatible with standard Big Bang cosmology, which has a finitely old universe.” As I noted in my R3 remarks, Con did not make any argument to show that my argument was inconsistent with a universe. Disputing that the universe had no beginning, therefore, does not undermine the argument I have presented. Con fails to respond to empirical proof (FLRW metrics) that P1 is true. Instead, he makes an argument about Albert Einstein’s beliefs. Not only did Einstein believe in a god that has nothing to do with the resolution, but it would be irrelevant even if he did. We are debating the existence of god defined as “the personal (rational and conscious), omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists”. According to the undisputed historical evidence that I presented, Einstein did not believe in a personal being who caused the universe. Einstein believed that god was the universe. The universe also doesn’t have a mind, so he didn’t accept a rational and conscious cause. Considering these facts, Einstein’s worldview should be considered irrelevant to the ‘’god’’ we are debating. Con has failed to show that this argument meets both standards of a valid appeal to authority. Einstein did not have relevant expertise because he was not a philosopher of physics. There is also no consensus on the subject being talked about. In response to the first point, he points out that I must think my worldview is better than Einstein’s. I’m not sure where he gets this from. I hold that Einstein’s worldview about god is irrelevant altogether. I think that Con has taken my second point of out context. The contention is not that an argument is invalid if there is no consensus on it. The contention is that an appeal to authority is invalid if there is no consensus. Con’s argument about mathematical models fails to account for two important things. Firstly, a mathematical model can be combined with a physical model to avoid absurd results. Secondly, there is no prior to the Big Bang. That’s a self-contradiction because there cannot be a ‘’before’’ time. Con states that there is no proven explanation of the Big Bang. I question the relevance of this observation. The resolution is about whether god is the most probable hypothesis. Nobody is trying to establish anything with 100% certainty. He also states that god could have caused the Big Bang. This isn’t relevant either, because we’re talking about the probability of something being true, not its logically possibility. They are very different things. Con observes that physicists don’t know much about dark energy. This observation does not undermine my argument in any conceivable way. I am basing my argument on theories of physics that have always been confirmed and never falsified, so we have good confidence that they are true. I am not trying to base it on anything in physics that is presently unknown or up for debate. Unaddressed points 1) Con did not dispute that 'every state of the universe is sufficient caused by a previous state' entails that 'a first state of time does not exist'. 2) Con does not dispute that a physical, ontological interpretation of the initial cosmological singularity is flawed. 3) Con does not dispute that my argument is consistent with a finite universe. 4) Con does not dispute that the first state of the universe can be explained by simultaneous causation. 5) Con does not dispute my proof that he has confused the Big Bang model with the steady state model. 6) Con does not dispute my proof that we can know what happened in the past.ConclusionThis debate is about whether it is more probable that god exists, or that god does not exist. The winner of this debate should be the person who proves their case with a preponderance of the evidence. It should be remembered that Con has presented no positive evidence to support the existence of god. Even if you think my arguments in this debate have failed, the debate should be left a tie, because the preponderance of the evidence would be equal.In my opening statement, I presented reasons to think that the first state of the universe could be explained by simultaneous causation. Empirical proof of simultaneous causation is found in Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's inequalities, as the measurement of one photon causes the other photon to instantaneously take on an anti-correlated spin. The first state of the universe can be logically explained by this simultaneous causation. One part of the state, X, simultaneously causes another part, Y, which simultaneously causes another part Z, which simultaneously causes another part, X. I also presented a quote from physicist Paul Davies to demonstrate that this concept has basis in physics. Con completely fails to respond to this entire argument, and does not even attempt to answer it in the debate.I also presented an argument called the entailment argument, which concludes that an external cause of the universe does not exist. This entails that god does not exist. Con has not made any arguments to show that it's logically invalid. So, the only thing left to do is analysis whether the premises are true. I believe that Con has failed to respond to the empirical evidence offered in favor of the premises. Con's only argument is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. This leaves Con with no good objections to either of my arguments at the end of the debate. For these reasons, a vote for Pro is the most justified.Vale