God is real

1. The arguments are mumbo jumbo If the concepts are simple, then they could be expressed in plain English. Even the most complicated theoretical arguments of physics have been expressed in plain English. But no one, not Langan, not Pro, not critics, not other advocates of CMTU have ever been able to do that. That's what makes it mumbo jumbo. I do not claim that there is no explanation, just that none has ever been accomplished. The origins of the phrase "mumbo jumbo" were from the Mandango peoples who had some concept of a masked figure, perhaps well defined, that could never be understood by non-Mandango peoples. In a debate, it's the proponents responsibility to make a clear argument and that hasn't happened. Some sentences make sense, but attempt to assemble a coherent proof fail. Let's consider part of Pro's explanation. I have underlined words and phrases that have no dictionary meanings. Pro says, "Simply stated, telic recursion says that reality, being totally self-contained, must be self-determinative and self-configuring. Moreover, whereas ordinary time accommodates changes occurring within the spacetime manifold, this is obviously not so for the kind of time in which the manifold itself changes." If all telic recursion says is that there is nothing outside of reality, that says nothing about whether a god exists or not. If not god exists, then gods are with unicorns and successful socialism in the world of imagination. "Self determination" means "free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion." But reality is a set of objects and natural laws. Natural laws govern what happens, but there is no free choice involved at the scale of the universe. One might say that there is analogy to "free choice" in the sense that nothing outside of reality is imposed, and there is no choosing going on. Later the conclusion is claimed that the universe is the mind of God, but the analogy does not work when it is taken literally to mean that choices are somehow contemplated. The dictionary meaning does not fit the context. “Spacetime manifold” is never defined. Later on “cosmic time” is used as if it is different from ordinary time, but it is never defined. The broader argument says, "For if “out of nothing nothing comes”, constraints must exist to enforce this requirement." But there is no proof of the assumption that "out of nothing comes nothing." it is an argument from incredulity. Quantum theory argues against the assumption, showing that equal amounts of positive and negative energy can appear spontaneously. Creationists argue that a quantum field must exist first, but that too is an argument from incredulity. It assumes that a quantum field must be pre-existing because it cannot be imagined otherwise. But it can. 2. Hawking has an apparently similar theory with no God required. Way before Langan, Hawking introduced a theory with some similarities, although Hawking was more careful to define terms. I'm straining to try to make a connection between CMTU and conventional cosmology, which may not be possible, but I'll try. Hawking proposed that time is finite but unbounded. It is not infinite, but it does not have a beginning and an end. [6. http://www.hawking.org.uk...] Hawking proposed that a universe is created by a quantum event, which is random. Hawking proposed that time is two dimensional, which seems to sort of correspond to “ordinary time” and “cosmic time.” I cannot say if there is really a correspondence, but it's suggestive. In the Hawking theory there is nothing outside of physical laws, so he says "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. ... It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." [7. http://www.theguardian.com...] Hawking's theory seems to bear similarities to some of CMTU if the undefined terms are mapped into some established terminology of physics. In Hawking's theory, the universe created itself without any need for a god. However, Hawking only claimed his ideas were a theory. CMTU is claimed to be a proof. I see nothing in CMTU that constitutes a proof. CMTU says that reality is self-contained. That implies that if God exists then God is real, but it does not argue that God exists. Hawking postulated a universe in which everything is real, but God does not exist. 3. Proving existence does not prove omnibenevolence. Pro must prove not only that some god exists, but that the particular god that exists is omnibenevolent. I do not see a trace of a link between the CMTU theory and benevolence. The best I can make of it is that anything God does is by definition benevolent. The AE and the ANB show that there are events which are clearly not benevolent by human definitions. The AE and ANB have to be made and answered using human definitions. If the principle is allowed that any definition can be substituted for the human ones then no test can disprove any god. For example, consider “The Flying Invisible Spaghetti Monster determines the weather. It is so written in the scriptures of pastafarianism.” The rebuttal is, “But the Flying Invisible Spaghetti Monster doesn't determine the weather. Weather is scientifically explained by unequal heating of the atmosphere in conjunction with geography and many other factors.” And rebuttal to that is “No, you just don't understand what weather is. The definition is not known to humans.” If human definitions are disallowed, no proof or disproof is possible. If “benevolence” is taken in the human sense, then the CMTU god is clearly disproved. If definitions are allowed which are unknown to humans, then the CMTU God cannot be tested and hence cannot be proved. If God is only thinking about what is moral and immoral, per Pro's idea that the universe is the mind of God, then it is immoral for God not to tell humans that what is going on is just a thought experiment. He must know, per omniscience, that he is causing humans substantial pain, and that revealing it is an experiment would be a substantial relief. An O3 God of any type would avoid unnecessary pain. Of course, if God has to even think about what is moral and immoral, then he is not omniscient. He should know. 4. CMTU offers neither a logical nor scientific proof. Pro says that Langan claims that there are useful applications of CMTU, but grants that none have been found. If so, then CMTU might be scientifically provable someday if a someday a test is found. String theory is in that awkward state of proponents claiming that a test will be found. Fine, but it cannot be proved until then, and Pro's debate obligation is provide a proof immediately. Pro argues that there might be a logical proof rather than a scientific proof. But logical proofs only work upon assumptions. They are of the form, "If A has some property and B has some property, then by logic C has some property." CMTU starts with a good definition that reality is the set of all things that exist. But it does not follow that God must exist to organize reality or to do anything else. We know some things exist and that natural laws exist, but claiming that there is nothing but reality implies that if anything is created it is natural laws. Hawking shows there is no need for any god. Pro has not met the burden of proof.