Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

Thanks for your 4th round Pro.Pro attempted to defend creation without time by describing simultaneity.But a simultaneity does not a creation make.No creation, no creator, no god in this debate. *The Passing of Time*As Pro has already described the origin of the universe, with the current accepted idea of cosmic inflation, Pro necessarily affirms that space itself had an origin and that this origin is also the origin of the universe.I agree.Pro has also already described that the origin of the universe is quantum mechanical.I completely agree.Pro then also accepts the current understanding that space and time are inter-contingent.Without time, there is no space, and without space, there is no time.In fact, that's why they put space and time on a continuum, called spacetime."In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."http://www.fourmilab.ch...Therefore Pro accepts that whence there was no space, there was no time, and, this is crucial here, Pro must also accept that whence there was no remaining space, there was no remaining time.So when there was no remaining time, there was no passage of time.This is bad news for a temporal process like creation.Without remaining spacetime and the passage thereof, a temporal process, which creation necessarily is, is not possible.Therefore the quantum conditions that are responsible for the origin of the universe cannot be described as creation, because of the temporal inadequacies of such a description.This also negates that there was a creator, quantum or otherwise.Pro mentions:"I am afraid CON could not be more wrong here. He is referring to a classical understanding of cause and effect relations within physics called "principle of locality"My response:Nope.I'm referring to the understanding of creation, not cause and effect, so we can dismiss your "principle of locality" irrelevance here.Pro cannot reduce my "no space, no time, no passing of time, no temporal processes, no creation of the universe argument" to "classical physics."Instead, Pro should focus on what creation means in this debate, given my definition and explanation of the concept in the rounds prior.Pro continues:"you cannot apply our understanding of classical physics at the very first moment of the big bang...it requires a quantum mechanical description to apply it at that point in time."My response:By Pro admitting here that that initial singularity is in fact a *point* in time and NOT a series of points in time, Pro admits that there was no series of points in time prior to this point, thus there was no temporal processes, thus this quantum point in time had no passage of time for creation.Pro concludes:"the best way to describe the first moment of the big bang is to say that the same moment in which the universe first came into being was the same moment it was caused or created by an immaterial spaceless timeless cause."My response:The first moment of the big bang WAS THE FIRST MOMENT.Therefore asserting that some cause used a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring the universe into existence (creation), ignores that time itself originated with the space that originated with the universe.Using the word "created" ignores the temporal inadequacies of the lack of the passage of time.Pro states:"every material effect must have an adequate antecedent OR simultaneous cause"My response:So an antecedent would require the passage of time, because in order for something to antecede, there needs to be precedence to allow for before and after; no time, no precedence.A simultaneous cause wouldn't be creation, because there's no difference between creator and created product.When you have two things that are simultaneously caused, which one is the creator?Seriously, Pro, if you consider the beginning of the universe to be a quantum origin and you're arguing that it was simultaneously caused, then how do you discern between creator and created product without the passage of time?If your creator didn't precede the universe AND your creator was simultaneously caused with the universe, then how do you know the universe didn't create your god?If there's no precedence without the passage of time, how do you know the creator and the created product?*The Mind*I had mentioned that the mind is contingent on the brain and Pro said, "I would agree with just about everything CON suggested here."Fantastic.But then Pro mentions that the mind is in a different dimension because:"our ability to apply physical manifestations of digital information or abstract objects ,not contingent upon nature, into the material world."My response:I fail to see any abstract objects not contingent on a brain to conjure them up.Seriously.Pro has not shown that abstract constructs are independent of brains or even neuronal substrates.Therefore the whole "digital/analog = abstract/concrete" argument really amounts to the idea that both analog and digital are in effect material because they both are contingent on at least electromagnetic radiation or charged particles.*Time Dimensions*I want readers to understand that string theory is the current scientific discipline that espouses this idea of "higher dimensions."Directly from a leading physicist in this particular field, a supporter of string theory, Michio Kaku,"Do higher dimensions exist?...we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions."http://mkaku.org...There is no experimental evidence for higher dimensions, so Pro can try to claim that the mind somehow exists in dimensions that haven't been demonstrated by the very science that proposes their existence, it just won't make any sense.I also maintain that none of the sources that Pro provided mentioned anything about a second spacetime dimension...none.Pro just made all of that second time dimension stuff up.Pro tries to provide a quote from his source that shows a second time dimension."An open question is whether subjective time is a unitary phenomenon, or instead whether it is underpinned by separate neural mechanisms that usually work in concert but can be dissociated under the right circumstances."My response:Did you see a mention of another time dimension?Me neither.This quote reaffirms what I had said earlier, that the study had shown that people's time perceptions tended to be inaccurate with different stimuli."Subjective time" is how the researchers referred to participants perceiving time differently than it was objectively occurring.That's all it showed...no time dimensions mentioned at all.Just read the study yourself.Boo Pro.*Values of the Universe*Pro says:"The reason why I suggested that the values were chosen is because they essentially came into being the same moment the universe came into being and ,thus, had to be created by the same causal entity."My response:Pro is necessarily advocating for a precedence to the universe with this attempt to justify "chosen" values for laws of the universe.Somehow, Pro's god was able to choose things when there was no time or the passage thereof.In fact, Pro has already said that god was a simultaneous creator of the universe, so when in this simultaneity did god choose the values?How do we know the universe didn't choose the values for god; it could be that the universe simultaneously created god.*Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence*Ok Pro answer these:1. Does your god have the power to create our universe without evil?2. Since there's evil, did god choose to create our universe with evil?3. Since god supposedly created everything, did he also create evil?If the answer is yes to all 3 of these questions your god is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent.If the answer is no to all 3 of these questions your god is not omnipotent, but could still be omnibenevolent.If your answers are inconsistent, you're lying.I argue that since Pro has already agreed that there are evils, and that god created and maintains the universe, then Pro admits that his god created evils and even maintains their existence.