God Exists

The Cause Of The UniverseThe problem with the predictions of a space-time boundary, is that the boundary predicted is a singularity. A singularity posits temperature, density, and curvature which is n/0. Division by 0 is logically contradictory, and since the singularity necessarily entails n/0, then the singularity at t=0 is logically impossible. If we assume a standard Big Bang model (not a quantum mechanical model), then there is no beginning point of the universe. This is because there is no first decimal after 0, and a state at t=0 of the universe is impossible. Meaning, any state one can point to, is necessarily preceded by other states. Pro has not established that a cause of the universe is needed. Also, if we assume a quantum mechanical model like Alexander Vilenkin's tunnelling model[1], or Stephen Hawking's no-boundary proposal[2], then the universe is explained naturalistically.The BurdenI actually do have a burden in this debate. Also, pro claims that a universe with consciousness is more plausible given God. I see no reason to accept this, and Pro gave no reason to support this. Even if there was a cause of the universe that lead to life, there is no reason to think that it had to do with any God. Also, benevolence does not follow from anything Pro said here, thus his argument is a non-sequitur. Counter-ArgumentsMy opponent assumes there is a cause of the universe. We are left with no reason to believe this, as any state of the universe is preceded by more states necessarily. There could be no singularity at t=0, and there is no first decimal after 0. Also, even if there was something preceding the universe (quantum mechanical models), they involve states describable by the laws of physics; nothing supernatural. The Futility Of ReligionThis has no bearing on the resolution. The Universe From Nothing Neither the standard Big Bang model, or quantum mechanical models involve the universe coming from nothing. This whole section is just a red herring. The Argument - Introduction My opponent assumes that energy pre-dates the universe. There is no reason to believe this, and it is not commonly accepted like Pro claims. Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins for example, involves the universe coming from a state of 0 energy. Quantum events don't need pre-existing energy. This is my opponent's mistake. The Argument – Differential Information TheoryPro presents a false dichotomy: (i) Intelligence that leads to x(ii) Chance that leads to xPro does not rule out:(iii) A non-sentient mechanism that leads to xFor example, does gravity keep my butt on the ground by chance? No. By intelligence? No. Gravity is a non-sentient mechanism that leads to that result. Similarly, anything we see today can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms without appealing to pure chance, or God at all. Since this argument is based on a false-dichotomy; it can be dismissed.The Argument – A Fine-Tuned UniversePro mentions how the universe is just right for life. However, there are many explanations which do not involve God. Paul Davies believes that due to time loops, and the quantum "fuzziness" at the beginning of the universe, that humans beings collapsed certain wave-functions to get our fine-tuned physical constants. God wouldn't fine-tune the universe, in a sense, we would using backwards causation to do this by observation of the universe essentially. Now, retro-causality has been confirmed as a real phenomenon in Quantum Mechanics[2]. So, the universe is fine-tuned for life, but not to due to a multiverse, a God outside the universe, or even a God inside the universe. Human beings are enough. Modal Argument For Atheism The essential structure of this particular subset of modal arguments that I am going to be putting forward will be a regurgitation of Ryan Stinger's framework: A. It is possible that p. B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists. C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p. D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)[4] God is a maximally great, and necessary being which entails that God, if possible, necessarily exists (which requires existence in every possible world). This inference is founded on the modal axiom S5[5], which is a basic axiom in modal logic. Now, in order for a Modal Argument for Atheism to work, the variable p has to be filled with that which will logically entail C is true. I am going to provide a quick list of such things which are prima facie metaphysically possible. It is possible that: (i) All sentience is physically realized (ii) The universe was created by a mindless, supernatural mechanism(iii) Naturalism is true(iv) There is no omnibenevolence(v) There is no omnipotence(vi) There is no omniscienceI could go on...We will call the set of all potential plugs for p, Set E. Each possibility mentioned is just as intuitively warranted as the premise that God is possible, and we can easily think of others then the ones mentioned. Since the claim that "God is possible" is outnumbered, then it is much more likely that God is impossible.- The Modal Argument For Atheism establishes the probable non-existence of GodProblem Of Evil I am going to present William Rowe's version [6] of the Argument from Evil. Here are two scenarios which the argument involves:(E1) Lightning strikes a tree in a forest, causing a forest fire. A fawn is caught in this fire, and suffers intense agony for an extended period of time before finally dying. (E2) A five year old girl is, by her mother's boyfriend, severely beaten, raped and strangled to death.The argument is as follows:(P) No good state of affairs that we know of is such that God, by bringing it about, is morally justified in permitting E1 and E2.Therefore, probably:(Q) No good state of affairs is such that God, by bringing it about, is morally justified in permitting E1 and E2.Therefore, probably:(R) God does not existThe inference from Q to R should be rather obvious as these things in question are self-evidently permitted if God exists (which the Problem of Evil establishes is a contradiction). The inference from P to Q is justified based on the principle of induction [7]; it is clearly prima facie warranted. It is safe to say that P is actually true because we have no good reason why God allows these instances to occur. To say God has morally sufficient reasons we just may not know about delves into radical epistemological skepticism. If we were consistent with the logic, then if I set up a bomb to blow up in an elementary school then skepticism would be warranted with regards to whether I was evil or not. It would have to be more reasonable to assume that I had morally sufficient reasons than the notion I did something evil according to this response to the Problem of Evil. If the Theist claims that is "different" without valid reasoning, then we are dealing with a classic case of special pleading. Also remember that one does not necessarily have to assume these acts of suffering are genuinely evil given Atheism. All we have to do is assume that these acts would be evil if God exists to show the contradiction in the idea of God. Pro has given us no good reasons to doubt Atheistic moral philosophy as well, so his "Good and Evil" section undermines the Problem of Evil in no way. - The Problem of Evil establishes the probable non-existence of God. ConclusionNone of Pro's arguments, argued for the God defined in the debate outline. Thus, even if he succeeds; he fails. I met my burden of proof. Sources[1] http://mukto-mona.net...[2] http://everythingforever.com...[3] http://www.popsci.com...[4] http://www.infidels.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[7] http://www.conservapedia.com...