Resolved: God Exists

I laud Pro’s arguments. It has been an amazing debate so far. RebuttalsCosmological ArgumentContingencies1. Pro is stating that in a group of variables x, y, and z, wherein x, y, and z are individually contingent, then there must have been a non-contingent origin for x, y and z. But if the existence of x, y, and z itself is contingent, then there need not be a non-contingent origin, because then the origin itself is contingent mathematically. P1: The universe is contingent.P2: Therefore, the universe’s existence is contingent.C: If P2, then the origin itself must be contingent, viz. the universe’s existence is contingent. 2. The application of this is done via. the Hume-Edwards Principle, which states that if the existence of x, y and z are explained, then the existence of x, y and z are explained without a definite cause. [1]3. Even if there is a non-contingent cause, how does that cause have to be a sentient, intelligent ruler of the universe? Pro must first prove that everything is contingent. OmniscienceGod, by the definitions provided in the debate, is omniscient. P1: If x is omniscient, then x knows everything with certainty.P2: If P1, then x perceives everything as certain.P3: If P2, then the perception is ontologically metaphysical.C1: Everything is certain.P4: Definite certainty implies lack of contingency.C2: Nothing is contingent. [2] If God is omniscient, then the cosmological argument is refuted by a being of this definition. Therefore, the cosmological argument is irrelevant in proving this omniscient God who is the ruler of the universe, and instead reflects a Deistic viewpoint. Ontological ArgumentEpistemic vs. Metaphysical PossibilityIn P2, it is directly implied that “it is possible that God exists in reality.” This is a bare assertion, with no proof whatsoever. Pro must fulfill their BoP by proving effectively via. scientific and metaphysical possibility that it is possible God exists. As it is a bare assertion, only the other portion of P2, which states “God can be conceived of”, is addressed, viz. if God is conceived of, then it cannot be implied that God is metaphysically possible; rather, God can only be epistemologically possible. [3] PositivityThis is not even a derivative. Atheists do not see God as non-great; they directly derive that as God does not exist [by atheists’ perception], it is irrelevant to “grade” God. Pro must demonstrate that existence is a positive property, not epistemologically but metaphysically. Pro merely provides analogies that can be refuted via. similar inductive reasoning, eg. if evil exists, it is not positive. Ontological NonexistenceLet me rephrase the ontological argument against the existence of God. P1: God is conceivable as non-existent.P2: God is non-existent in some possible world.P3: God is non-existent in all possible worlds.C: God is non-existent. This is a derivative refutation using the same principles of ontology. P1 is justified as we can conceive God as a non-existent entity via. not believing in God. Subjective ExistenceBy the definitions provided in this debate, to “exist” is to “be actual in objective reality.” Thoughts and imaginary constructs are subjective, not objective. This is a violation of Rule 4. Greatness and Conceivability“Great” is defined as “considerably above average.” [4] Omnipotence and omniscience are not attributes to necessarily conceive as above average, as if so, greatness depends on power and knowledge. What greatness is dependent on is relative and necessary to the ontological contention. That God is the greatest conceivable being must be demonstrated. Note: I shall address the “Religious Experience” argument after further rebuttals. The Big Bang – Quantum FluctuationsGravityGravity was preexistent to the Big Bang. [5] The negative energy intrinsic to gravity allowed for the formation of locations in gravitational spacetime in a vacuum state. That gravity exerts energy is proven via. the Sachs-Wolfe Effect’s prediction of a gravitational redshift: as photons enter a gravitational potential well, they pick up extra energy, losing energy as they exist. [6][7] The energy is released as Hawking radiation in black holes, a form of black body radiation. [8] My opponent argues that space was not present prior to the Big Bang. Actually, with the existence of gravity, a form of “gravitational space” did exist prior to the Big Bang. While via. the Second Law of Thermodynamics, time is the rate of entropic graduation in the universe [9], prior to the emergence of randomness, time was “governed” by gravitational spacetime (according to the most accepted theories). [8] Mass-Energy Equivalence & MatterDuring a quantum fluctuation, two particles form: one particle and one antiparticle. As described, this is possible via. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Its application to matter is more detailed, and is as follows: “In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle--for example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-positron pairs. It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays.” [10] Mass-energy equivalence, as described, virtually disproves the conservation of mass and allows for the theory of uncaused quantum fluctuations to be valid. [11] Uncaused Energy & the Uncertainty PrincipleAs described previously, the uncertainty principle [that illustrates energy/time uncertainty] allows for a temporary change in the level of energy of a place. To further strengthen this, I must state that, as the conservation of mass is “stretched” via. mass-energy equivalence [11], hypotheses such as the zero-energy universe hypothesis can remain logically consistent with existing laws. “In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.” [8][12] The zero-energy universe hypothesis, as cited by physicist Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books: 1988), is very supported because of the uniform homogeneity of the universe, as seen in the Les Campanas Redshift Survey. [13] The universe is, thus, isotropic, as further supported by the finding of CMB radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1964. [14] Addressing Rebuttals of the Big Bang ArgumentR1. “Quantum fluctuations can only violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time, the universe has existed for more than 14 billion years and shows no signs of going away any time soon.”CR1. The short violation of the conservation of energy allows for a change in the energy density levels enough to create a singularity, allowing for expansion of energy that follows via. gravitational energy. R2. “Quantum fluctuations can only occur in a point in space (a vacuum), yet there was no space or vacuums prior to the Big Bang.”CR2. As already illustrated, the existence of gravity allows for the permanent existence of gravitational “space”, allowing for the existence of locations in a vacuum state within a baryon-plasma sea of gravitational space. [8] Law of ParsimonyMetaphysical Naturalism vs. TheismI agree with Pro’s interpretation of Occam’s Razor. Once more, the existence of God is not necessary, allowing for the Law of Parsimony to be in my favor once more. As seen above, scientific metaphysical naturalism is simpler than theism. The resolution is negated. References1. http://goo.gl...2. “Purtill on Fatalism and Truth”. Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.3.Inwagen, P.V. (1998). “Modal Epistemology.” Philosophical Studies 92:1-2, pp. 67-84.4. “Great.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English.5. http://goo.gl...6. Boughn, S.; Crittenden, R. (2004). “A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Large-Scale Structure in the Universe.” Nature 427. p. 45.7. http://goo.gl...8. Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.9. http://goo.gl...10. http://goo.gl...11. http://goo.gl...12. Stenger, V.J. (2003). Has Science Found God? Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-859-5.13. http://goo.gl...14. http://goo.gl...