God Exists

The Universe Lacks A Cause or Creator Here I argue that it is impossible for the universe to have had a creator, therefore by extension God. Furthermore I argue that the universe doesn’t need a creator either, therefore God wouldn’t even be the best explanation for the existence of the universe. To argue that God created the universe also argues that the universe itself is caused by God (with God himself being the Efficient Arestolian Cause), however this runs into significant problems as causes can only occur if tensed facts exist. However such tensed facts can only occur within the A-Series of time (Presentism etc. being subsets), moreover science provides significant evidence against the A-Series of time, and significant evidence in favour of the B-Series off time (which is tenseless). To formulate: P1. The universe is caused if and only if tensed facts exist P2. Tensed facts do not exist C. The universe is uncaused Hence if the universe is uncaused, the clearly God couldn’t have caused it either. Premise 1 is uncontroversial in among time theorists, including cosmological argument proponents such as William Lane Craig, who affirms: “From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."[1] So, the only point in contention is P2, which science affirms in earnest. The theory of relativity describes the universe in a four-dimensional ontology, with time itself being another axis in a four-dimensional plane. Affects we see such as length contraction and time dilation result from time being a tangable dimension, with sequential events approaching in a manner which violates the A-Series of time. Moreover, these assumptions of relativity (that the speed of light is constant, and the laws of physics are the same everywhere, which is well-supported by observation) lead to successful predictions made by Quantum Mechanics & Quantum Electrodynamics, which have also been astonishingly successful (which would most likely have been impossible if the A-Series of time was true). With this in hand, the universe itself never had a ‘beginning’ per say, but only a first-moment in time. The universe just exists as-is, with the past present & future all existing simultaneously, and hence cannot have been created. Moreover, observations in quantum mechanics necessarily entail the existence of the future (and hence the falsehood of the A-Series of time), which I can formulate: P1) If the A-Series of time is true, then retrocausality is impossible P2) Retrocausality is true C) The A-Series of time is false P1 is uncontroversial, since Presentism literally requires only the ‘present’ to ever exist, by definition, to deny this is to deny the law of identity. P2 we know is true from results in delayed-choice in quantum mechanics. Moreover the predictions made by assuming retrocausality are fulfilled with tremendous accuracy so long as information is not transmitted.[4] Universe Does Not Require God This argument is formulated as follows using modal logic: P1. If God is necessary, then spontaneous natural creation of the universe is impossible P2. Spontaneous natural creation of the universe is possible C. God is unnecessary P1 is as sound as 2+2=4 if we assume ‘natural’ literally means ‘Non-Intelligently Caused’, and is the the modal formulation: NG -> ~P~G Axiom 1 & 2. So the only room for debate is premise 2, which is increasingly affirmed by what we know of science. As I already affirmed in the quantum eternity theorem, the only way the universe could not be eternal is if the energy content of the universe is zero, this has the direct implication that the universe on average, contains zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles, and hence according the the laws of physics (quantum mechanics and thermodynamics), the universe that we see today could only have arisen naturally from a state of “zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles” if there is no ‘net energy’ in the universe today. Moreover such a universe can only exist if and only if the geometry of the universe is spacially flat. That is exactly what we find when studying the cosmic microwave background, NASA scientists found that the universe is flat to within 0.4% error with most recent measurements, down from 15% in 2001.[5] Furthermore, we know that empty space (absent of any energy, particles, photons) itself is instable, and spontaneously according the laws of quantum mechanics yields a bubbling brew of particles & anti-particles which annihilate on short-timescales (according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) which when gravity is applied, leads to particles of impunity. In other words, if you take empty space, and leave it, particles that persist will arise, which can easily account for the ‘stuff’ of the universe.[6,7] References: 1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 2. http://arxiv.org... 3. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. “A Universe from Nothing” – L Krauss Ch. 9 Rebuttals Probability Argument Pro argues of 200+ stipulations that must be met perfectly but fails to cite any of there, nor how his number of 1 in 700 quintillion figure is calculated. Now, Pro’s argument isn’t presented formally, and that’s because it is incoherent if attempted. Take this following 52 card hand I have found myself with cards: Link: http://www.debate.org... click="document.location='/Envisage/photos/album/5124/35452/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5124/156777-5124-4765p-a.jpg" alt="" /> The odds of this happening by chance is is easy to calculate, it's simply 52 factorial, or 8x10^67. Vastly greater than Pro’s number of “700 quintillion”. Now using Pro’s line of reasoning, the staggering low probability of this hand being randomly dealt “requires far MORE faith to assume that it all "just happened" than to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of these criteria (specific cards) were met”. This is of course absurd, the hand is random, and if we assume that these criterion are random (which Pro hasn’t proven), then there is no argument here on its own. The reason why the original argument might be persuasive is because Pro has arbitrarily assigned some special value to “Earth existing” or “Life existing”, which is exactly that, arbitrary. IF I were to assign value to this specific arrangement of cards in a 52 card hand, then if I were to randomly deal myself this exact hand again in the future, only then would I have a stronger case for an alternative explanation, such as a guiding intelligence, causing it. If someone were to deal this exact hand themselves then I could probably assume they rigged their 52-card hand, but we need to have value assigned to this hand first. Pro’s entire first two paragraphs hinge on this premise and collapse until this is correctly addressed. “High Information Content” Pro hasn’t defined what “information content” means. Living cells create new “information content” in their DNA all the time via duplication and mutations every time a cell undergoes mitosis. Sometimes entire sections of DNA get duplicated and then mutations render the region unrecognisable.[8] Moreover the laws of physics govern how chemistry works, which if you had sufficient information (which is obviously impossible in practice given the sheer number of particles) would allow yu to perfectly predict the arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA. In principle the order of nucleotide bases in the DNA is indeed determined by physical laws governing quantum mechanics, electromagnetic force, and even gravity. Moreover Pro doesn’t demonstrate how specific these DNA sequences need to be to form “functional proteins”, nor does he define what “functional proteins” means. Proteins usually exhibit significant fidelity in what amino acids can be substituted, which leads to proteins with different structures and differing levels of efficacy, even in highly conserved proteins between species such as Cytochrome C.[9] To use Pro’s argument against him, there is no “physical or chemical law” which dictates that high information content” requires “intelligent design played a causal role”. It is not necessary in principle, and as already demonstrated, it not necessary in practice either, cells nowadays do it all the time. A cool example of this is using natural selection mechanisms and random mutations to develop virtual “creatures” that “jump” obstacles with no input except a mechanism to remove less fit organisms from the pool.[10] The final parameters of the virtual creature, such as the links between “organs”, tension, length, etc. can all be said to be “High Information Content” giving functional creatures. Irreducable Complexity I’ll address this later. References: 8. https://www.medicinenet.com... 9. https://releasingthetruth.wordpress.com... 10.