God most likely exists

== My case == Through the ancient times, following Zarathustra's proclamation of a monotheistic, unembodied, and more abstract variation of the nature deities worshipped by the ancients, the primary source for apologetics -- which derives from the Greek "apologia," which means "defense" -- of God's existence was a form known as presuppostionalism. Today, presuppositional apologetics is considered a branch of specifically Christian apologetics, but the philosophy behind presuppositionalism was a chief defense for belief in God. Indeed, the trial of Socrates and the house arrest of Galileo were both clear examples of presuppositionalism -- the idea that we have to presuppose the existence of God, and then work our way from there. In fact, the primary source for suppression of science was this presuppositional viewpoint taken by religion. Following this came an evidentialist perception of apologetics, which seeks to argue that God best explains certain phenomena. But I hold that no phenomena cannot be explained without God. God is an unnecessary assumption that is unable to clearly explain things. The principle of simplicity holds that "ontological parsimony," or invoking less assumptions, is required to be held a strong explanation. Since the Fransican friar William Ockham proposed his epistemological razor that stated that the explanation which invokes least explanations, or ad hoc assumptions, is more likely, it has remained an understood fact that nothing in the universe cannot be explained without God. I have a strong reason under this principle to think that atheism is true -- if God exists, the universe had a cause, meaning there was something "before the universe." But time itself began with the universe -- sans the universe, there is neither time directionality nor physical constraint. It is impossible to cognitively process anything time-less -- we use words such as "now," "then," "before," and "after," all of which presuppose time directionality. Sans time, there's nothing "before" or "after" anything, so there are no events and no objects. Therefore, there couldn't have been anything before the universe, and God couldn't have caused the universe. Of course, it's possible to add the simple ad hoc explanation that God caused the universe simultaneously -- in other words, the cause and the effect took place at the same time. But if simultaneous causation is possible, there's no need to add God, since the causality of the universe can be explained via simultaneous causation using particles that we know exist, i.e. elementary particles. For instance, quarks and electrons could have simultaneously caused each other into ad infinitum, in the process creating the universe. The quark causes the electron and the electron causes the quark at the same instantaneous moment. There's no reason there to think God exists at all. So, we have two possible explanations: (1) the theological one, which assumes the existence of elementary particles and God, and (2) the secular one, which only assumes elementary particles. Since the first explanation invokes more assumptions, prefer the second one by Occam's razor. From the above information, and from what is presumed in a basic debate setting, the proof burden is with Pro. It's Pro's burden to prove that "God most likely exists." The resolution is a fact claim, rather than a normative one. We presume that the resolution is false until Pro proves so. Thus, the BoP is on Pro. Cosmological Argument (1) Just because we haven't observed anything uncaused means everything is caused. Pro is presuming the principle of the uniformity of nature, which is an unjustified assumption made by all inductive reasoning. The principle suggests that if there have been consistent observations of phenomena X appearing in conditions Y, with no observations of Y without X, then we can conclude that if Y exists in a certain location, X applies there. But, as Hume's problem of induction noted, there's no actual reason to believe in the principle. [1] Even if such a principle applies within the universe, we're talking about the causality of the universe; sans the universe, there's no application of special or general relativity. If SR doesn't apply, the uniformity of nature does not apply by definition. The purpose of SR in physics is to establish this principle. [2] Furthermore, sans the universe, "efficient causation" is incoherent. In other words, a cause cannot precede an effect, because the idea of "precession" assumes time. An event cannot precede another without time. Only simultaneous causation can cause this, in which case both cause and effect cause each other in an infinite regression. (2) The "beginning of the universe" is incoherent. A "beginning" entails that a certain effect began at a certain moment in time. But sans the universe, time doesn't exist. There is no precession or succession without time. There are no Cauchy surfaces for time to be on. Pro's justification for an absolute beginning relies on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and on Big Bang cosmology. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem only applies on the scale of a universe that is "absolutely expanding," and is not static from an absolute moving reference frame. [3] But there's no evidence that such an absolute frame of reference even exists. In fact, there have been multiple suggestions, via theorems from quantum physics and suggestions like the Hartle-Hawking state, that the universe's expansion is not absolute; rather, if there were an external observer, the universe would not be expanding. Rather, the universe would be static. The quantum eternity theorem, for instance, suggests a four-dimensional universe that just remained eternal. (3) The argument isn't relevant. Pro argues that such a timeless, spaceless entity "seems a lot like God." But that doesn't fit this debate's definition of God. The debate's definition of God is a conscious entity. The argument doesn't prove a conscious or intelligent cause in any way. First Cause (1) Assuming the argument, the question entails: what is the uncaused cause the cause of? God is defined as the cause of the universe. An uncaused cause or a "first cause" doesn't necessarily need to be the cause of the universe. (2) The argument assumes that simultaneous causation is impossible. Because there doesn't need to be an infinite regression of past causes if there is no uncaused cause under simultaneous causality, the impossibility of the same is presumed. This assumption is unjustified. Most physicists agree that simultaneous causality is possible. Alain Aspect conducted experiments in an attempt to confirm Bell's theorem on photon causality, and actually found simultaneous causes and effects in the photons in question -- basically a form of quantum teleportation. [4] (3) A cause of the universe is not necessarily God until proven to be so. Intelligent Design (1) The argument is irrelevant. Pro doesn't explain how intelligent design is the best explanation for this fine-tuning. It's up to Pro to prove that. (2) The calculation is a severely poor attempt to lead on to the conclusion. The universe is technically "fine tuned" just as much for the existence of black holes, and for the existence of volcanoes. If there were changes in a major constant, they wouldn't exist either. The improbability at it arising from chance is, in fact, a mis-application in this debate, because it can't be applied to this actual world. Rather, it would apply in a different possible world, because the probabilities for other explanations -- such as intelligent design -- might be just as low. I'll illustrate this argument with the example of a pack of 52 cards. If I took the cards, shuffled them, and spread them out in a crescent, the probability of that exact pattern coming would be one to 52 factorial. Since 52! is approximately equal 8.07 x 10^67, the ratio of such a pattern coming up is one to 8.07 x 10^67, which is in fact a huge number. But since any pattern has the same probability, one can't conclude that it's improbable for me to get any number. The same way, Pro has to establish the probability of intelligent design on itself, rather than as opposed to chance. (3) Pro is quote-mining. The full quote made by the fifth source is, "A world freely created by God, and ordered in a particular, felicitous way at the origin of a linear time, constitutes a powerful set of beliefs, and was taken up by both Christianity and Islam. An essential element of this belief system is that the universe does not have to be as it is: it could have been otherwise." [5] Irreducible Complexity The truth of evolution is irrelevant to the debate, which is about God's existence. Unless Pro proves that God's existence is the best explanation for the origin of species (following which I will be happy to defend evolution), the argument is irrelevant. Since Pro's arguments are severely under-explained and under-articulated, and don't properly prove God, and for the reasons outlined above, vote Con. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...