God probably does not exist.

AvePreliminary NoteCon makes no attempt to attack the logical validity of the argument. Therefore, he agrees that the truth of the premises entail the conclusion. Now the only issues that's left is whether there are good reasons to affirm the premises as true.Response to ConIn my first round, I used to FLRW metrics to establish that every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state. Con's response to this argument is logically invalid. He argues that using FLRW metrics to establish that every state of the universe is suffcient caused by a previous state because Einstein believed in god. As a historical note, Einstein was actually a pantheist who believed that god was the universe. [1] There are much bigger problems with Con's response than this. He committs a logically invalid appeal to authority. Authority can only be invoked in an argument when the authority has expertise that is 1) relevant to the subject and 2) there exists consensus among experts on the subject. [2] Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher, so his opinions on the implications of theory of relativity on the philosophy of physics are irrelevant by standard 1. There are also no reasons to think that 'Einstein believed in god' entails that 'FLRW metrics are not proof that every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a prevous state'. Ergo, I think there are good reasons for dismissing Con's flimsly objections.Con thinks that mathematical models of the universe are purely mathematical and have no bearing on what is physically real. First, he hasn't connected this statement to the argument I gave, so I'm not sure what it is he is trying to argue. The second problem is that this is a false statement. The equations that you derive from relativity will tell you what the universe we live in is like. The FLRK metric describes a universe that is homogeneous, isotropic, and expanding. [3] This means that space-time is expanding, not contracting, that the universe is istropic (the universe looks the same in all directions), and that the universe is homogeneous on large-scales (if you stand in any place and look around, the universe will be the same). A proper understanding of metric tensors must lead to the conclusion that mathematical models have relevance to what is physically real (Of course, not all mathematical models take physical factors into account, but the one relevant to this argument does.)Con has also confused the Big Bang model of the universe with the steady state model of the universe, or perhaps the quasi steady state universe. The Big Bang model does not state that "our universe has been here in its current form since eternity'. In fact, it states the exact opposite: the universe did not exist before 13.9 billion years ago. [4][5][6]Con says that we have no way of knowing what happened in the past. This statement entails that physics, astronomy, biology, paleontology, geology, and other fields of science are false. It also means that history is false. For example, there is good and accepted evidence that most animal phyla began around 534 million years ago in what is called the 'Cambrian explosion' [7]. An example of things we know about the past from geology is the existence of Pangea, when all continents were in one large landmass. [8] (Of course, there are hundreds of examples like this. I don't want to push the point farther than it needs to be)But aren't we just establishing that based on the principles of today? Couldn't the laws of nature have been different in the past? I would answer in the negative. Scientific theories can have good confidence that the principles today applied to the past, like half-lives of unstable isotopes of principles of geology. This is due to a scientific epistemology called falsificationism, which solves the problem of induction as far as science goes. The principle of falsification states that a good hypothesis must be, in principle, able to be disproved. Consider the principle of uniformitarianism. This is the geological principle which states that geological processes happening now also happened for the Earth's entire history. We have high confidence in the principle because of Popper's principle of falsifiability. Remember, Popper said that a good hypothesis has to be falsifiable. There has to be some experiment that can be done to demonstrate the hypothesis as true. The hypothesis which says 'Geological processes might have been different in the past' is unfalsifiable. I can't go two billion years into the past and see if Potassium-Argon dating still works like it does today. Geologists should reject the idea that geological processes were different in the past because the hypothesis is fundamentally bad, as it cannot be falsified. Con brings up that science doesn't have a full understanding of dark matter. What's his argument here? He doesn't tell us what we're supposed to conclude from this fact. I can't refute an argument if an argument hasn't been presented.Unaddressed pointsBy the fact that these points have not been answered, they can assumed to be true as of now.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 simutaneous causation.ValeReferenceshttp://www.cbc.ca...http://www.princeton.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu...A Universe From NothingA Brief History of Timehttp://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...