God exists

Thank you Mike for the open challenge, good luck! I. God Mike and I have agreed to drop the omniscient qualifier for God, and I will be arguing for an omnipotent conscious creator god of the universe. II. The Fine Tuning Argument The fine tuning argument is an argument for God which attempts to account for the precisely tuned constants and laws of physics/nature that allow not only for life, but for anything of interest to occur whatsoever. The argument can be formalised as a complex syllogism: P1) If the universe is finely tuned, then it has a conscious fine tuner P2) The universe is finely tuned C1) The universe has a conscious fine tuner P3) If the universe has a conscious fine tuner, it must be all-powerful C2) The universes" conscious fine tuner is all-powerful (God) The argument consists of two standard modus ponens. If the argument is valid and the premises are true/likely to be true, then we have excellent reason to accept the conclusion that follows. Defence of P2 The universe, as is currently known, is extremely well described by quantum mechanics, the standard model, and general relativity. These theories so far tell us a great deal about the behaviour of the universe, and accurate models constructed from these, physicists call this "from first principles". [1] What has been realised is "working from first principles" we find the universe hinges on a number of fundamental constants of nature. What is more striking is that variations in these fundamental constants of nature would lead to a completely sterile universe. Not just a sterile universe for life, but also a universe completely devoid of anything interesting to speak whatsoever, including basic chemistry. The fine balance that the universe is in, and the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to suspect the universe couldn"t have been anything different (i.e. these fundamental constants set to some other values) leads us to the conclusion that the universe necessarily must have been tuned to allow for the conditions that life arose from.[2] Note that this does not necessarily mean life was the objective of this tuning, as it would likely have been an outcome of any tuning made to create an "interesting universe", for whatever reason. These "first principles" reduce down to several fundamental constants of nature. I will discuss the speed of light, the cosmological constant, the Newtonion gravitation constant and the strong nuclear force. There are many more but they are unnecessary to discuss in this debate. The strong nuclear force for example is known to have a tolerance of just 0.5% in either direction.[3] Increasing the strength of the strong nuclear force would lead to all the hydrogen formed in the big bang to form diprotons, which would make nuclear fusion nigh impossible within stars, and also removes the most useful and abundant element, Hydrogen, from the list of available elements. Reducing the strong nuclear force would make essentially every single element above hydrogen unstable, and thus we would be left in a universe filled with nothing but diffuse hydrogen. The cosmological constant is known to be very finely tuned also, increasing it would have led to the universe expanding at far too great a rate for galaxies and stars to form.[4] A lower value would have led to the universe collapsing into a black hole before the party started. No chemistry, no life, nothing interesting. Similarly for the gravitational constant, increasing it would have knock on effects, such as the universe collapsing to become a black hole, and far too short lived stars to sustain evolution. Too low would lead to the universe diffusing into a cloud of hydrogen and helium. [4] Moreover the laws themselves could have been drastically different. It is a very clear and useful indication that we have an exceptionally rare configuration. I have not listed all the variables critical for anything of interest to occur in our universe but it's not a far stretch to state that the number of sterile universes stupendously outnumber the number of non-sterile universes. Therefore we have overwhelming evidence that the universe is finely tuned, and strongly satisfies P2. Defence of P1 My defence of P1 is summarised as follows: PI) Either the fundamental constants were set intelligently (by a fine tuner) or non-intelligently (randomly) PII) Most likely not non-intelligently C) Most likely the fundamental constants were set intelligently Premise II of this sub-argument may see some contest, but as we so far know there is no 'selection' pressure that selects for 'interesting' universes in cosmology, and even if such a mechanism did exist then the exact same argument can be made for that selection event. Since there are an unimaginably large number of ways a 'selection' event could end up selecting for something. For example the process of natural selection in evolution could have ended up selecting for silicon based life instead if carbon based, where only carbon based life causes the secondary effect that would be analogous to the argument I am making. As argued for in P1 of the fine tuning argument, there are an unimaginably large number of ways the universe could have been, and as such any non-specific method for selecting a viable setting, or 'tune' for the universe is unimaginably likely to pick a 'bad' and sterile setting. Therefore it follows that it is very unlikely that such a selection could have been performed non-intelligently. With a conscious fine tuner to do the fine tuning however, this problem immediately disappears. Since the intelligent agency can adjust the variables, and an agency, or being, with sufficient intelligence and power to do so would be able to accomplish this. The conscious tuner would have the foresight and motivation to produce a somewhat interesting universe. Therefore is follows that it is even more unlikely that the tuning could have been performed non-intelligently. Defence of P3 These cosmological constants tie into the very clockwork of how our universe operates. It goes without saying that any conscious being that is capable of manipulating these is one that is all-powerful. Such a being would be transcendent of the laws and and nature of physical reality, and therefore quickly fulfils the final qualifier for God in this debate. V. Kalam Cosmological Argument You can call me Dr. Craig! P1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause P2) The universe began to exist C) The universe has a cause Defence of P1: This premise is evident by both inductively and logically. All things that begin to exist have elicited a 'change' of some sort, and all changes known occur due to causes known within the universe. Gravity causes the pen to fall, the displacement of space-time causes the gravity, the quantum vacuum causes quantum fluctuations. This is logically supported by the weak principle of sufficient reason [5]. There has never been an observance of any event occurring without an existing cause, and that includes beginning to exist. Moreover ex nihilo nihil fit - out of nothing, nothing comes is a simple statement that the universe could not have come from nothing, for numerous reasons much less the PSR. Moreover it is impossible for the universe to have created itself, since that would imply the universe would have existed prior to itself existing, which is logically nonsensical. Defence of P2 Modern cosmology clearly shows the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, by tracing this expansion back we find that all the mass, energy everything within the universe 'exploded' into existence in a spectacularly energetic event known as the origin of the Big Bang. Such is very well attested by studies of the CMB, redshift, and more recently gravitational wave polarisation. Virtually every prediction made by Big Bang cosmology has come true and as such the very origin of the universe as well. Indeed many modern cosmological models take into account the beginning if the universe, one such example among many is given by Stephen Hawking.[6] To connect the conclusion to God we have: PI) Either the cause of the universe was concious/non concious PII) Not non-concious C) The cause of the universe was concious (God) In defence of premise II, the only known non-conscious causal things are material/physical. However before the origin of the universe it is impossible for anything physical or material to exist as all things material/physical are contingent on the (not yet existent) universe. A conscious cause fulfils all the criteria of immateriality, causal ability and will to do something. It would also follow that such a being is omnipotent, since it is capable of causing the universe, satisfying the resolution. Over to Con! V. References [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] doi:10.1017/S0036930600017385. [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...