Resolved: God Exists

R1) Cosmological Argument RIA. Contingencies Pro has still not explained why a contingent object x has to be contingent on something. If x, y and z are contingent, then why can’t they be contingent without being contingent “on” anything? A set of objects can be contingent without the requirement of support from a non-contingent object. Secondly, if x, y and z are contingent, then the group of x, y and z, as the set S, does not need to be contingent. This is a logical fallacy via. the fallacy of composition, which states that if an agency is comprised of parts that share a property, the agency need not have that property. [1] An example of the fallacy of composition:Hydrogen and oxygen are gases at room temperature. Is water (hydrogen+oxygen) a gas at room temperature? RIB. Properties As illustrated in RIA, the universe need not be contingent, ergo, there does not have to be a non-contingent cause of the universe. If the universe has a non-contingent explanation, it does not have to be God, as God is not the transcendental non-contingent cause of the universe by definition. If Con ascribes a definition not stated in the debate, then Con must support this definition with proof. An external cause violates physics. Quantum superposition states that a physical system exists in all its particular theoretically possible states simultaneously, but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (via. Schrodinger’s cat). [2] P1. An external cause will have an omniscient view of its nature via. its own properties. P2. Ergo, the external cause observes all quantum superpositions. P3. Observation collapses quantum superpositions. P4. An all-observing (transcendental) cause would collapse all quantum superpositions. P5. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed. C. Therefore, an external cause cannot exist. [3] RIC. Omniscience As proven in RIB, a being cannot be transcendental, or it will violate the law of quantum superposition and Schrodinger’s cat. Therefore, God is not outside time, ergo, God is still subject to definite knowledge of contingencies within time, wherein the paradox stated previously still stands. R2) Ontological Argument RIIA. Ontological Nonexistence Pro says possible existence is the “default state. ” Once more, this leads to the logical incoherency arguments. I would like to note that, if there is a logical incoherency, then the reverse premise: “It is possible that God does not exist”, can be applied via. the same logic, thus refuting the ontological argument. Also, a hypothetical single-particle world would, for example, be simpler to conceive via. ontological non-existence, ergo, a multiple-particle world would follow the same using the principle of a quantum Hamiltonian. RIIB. Logical Incoherencies 1. Omnipotence An action is defined as “the fact or process of doing something. ” [4] As even a logical impossibility is “something”, doing it is an action by definition. The second part of the incoherency of omnipotence follows this premise: P1. Omnipotence is a defining property of God. P2. If omnipotence is impossible, God is impossible. P3. Omnipotence is a logical incoherency. C. God is impossible. This premise is not to illustrate the impossibility of God, but rather to show that Pro must defend every property of God to defend God’s existence, which Pro denies by saying God is “omnipotent by definition. ” Therefore, omnipotence is a valid logical incoherency. 2. Omniscience I extend my RIC argument: “Omniscience”, which illustrates that omniscience is a logically incoherent property. 3. Pre-Creation Pro is making a bare assertion that a non-contingent being does not need to have a cause. Even if God is a non-contingent source, God needs a source following Pro’s own logic. RIIC. Positivity of Existence “Therefore, God in B is better than God in A. ” This is a bare assertion, with no philosophical proof whatsoever. Here, too, it is pre-assumed that objective existence is a predicate, which Pro has not supported in any way. Furthermore, here, we can use Occam’s Razor to determine that, as God in A is making least assumptions, A is a priori more likely than God in B. Secondly, Pro has still not proven how God is the greatest being conceivable. Therefore, P1 of the ontological argument still fails. RIID. Subjective Existence “Being”, here, refers to the continuous verb that is absorbed from the verb “be”. Pro is assuming, via. ontology, that epistemological being is objective existence, without supporting it with evidence. Metaphysical possibility is logical and physical possibility, not solely the former. Let me further illustrate this with another example: Water =/= H2O There is nothing epistemologically or even logically unsound about water not being H2O, but that is metaphysically impossible; similarly, ontology uses only epistemological means to assert the existence of God. R3) Religious Experience Once more, we take into account logical incoherencies to mathematically limit the likelihood of the existence of God with regards to religious experience. Furthermore, this argument entails absurd conclusions, e. g. experience of witnessing UFOs, etc. R4) Naturalistic Origin of the Universe RIVA. The Causal Premise This depends on a very specific definition of the word “energy” to be strengthened. Energy is simply the capacity of a system to perform work. [5] There are two primary forms of energy. The first is the energy ascribed to via. mass-energy equivalence, a scalar quantity. The second is gravitational energy, which is often referred to as a “force”, but which, via. the physical definition of energy, is energy. Gravity is an attractive force and is a vector quantity, allowing for its energy to be negative via. the zero-energy universe hypothesis. [6] “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. ” [7][8] As I demonstrated in the previous round, the universe is homogenous, and, therefore, approximately uniform in space, allowing for the zero-energy universe hypothesis to be accurate. The zero-energy universe hypothesis was demonstrated in a 2009 study, via. a pseudo-tensor point of view. [9] If the net energy of the universe is/was 0, then the 0 net energy could have supported the creation of a gravitational singularity with a temporary quantum mechanical fluctuation, allowing for no need of a finite cause of the universe. [1o] RIVB. Time Uncertainty A quantum fluctuation is a shift with matter-antimatter annihilation with a point in gravity in the vacuum state. This fluctuation will have begun as a gravitational wave [predicted by Albert Einstein in 1915, proven in 2014] that takes up gravitational negative energy to create a small ripple of spacetime, that would have allowed for the formation of particles and corresponding antiparticles as a mechanical fluctuation. [3] R5) Law of Parsimony RVA. Metaphysical Naturalism vs. Theism Once more, via. Occam’s Razor, we can conclude that the existence of God is not needed. In a comparison of metaphysical naturalism and theism, metaphysical naturalism is simpler, thus a priori most likely. As my opponent has accepted Occam’s Razor, this conclusion yields the unlikelihood of the existence of God. Conclusion Thus, I have refuted the Cosmological, Ontological, and Religious Experience arguments, have demonstrated how a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is valid, and used Occam’s Razor (accepted by Pro) to show how the existence of God is improbable and unlikely. I request Pro to merely type “Round waived” in the next round. I thank Pro for an amazing, interesting debate. The resolution is negated. Vote Con. References [1] . http://goo.gl... [2] Gribbin, John (2011). In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics And Reality. Random House Publishing Group. p. 234. ISBN 0-307-79044-4. [3] . http://goo.gl... [4] “Action. ” The New Oxford Dictionary of American English. [5] . http://goo.gl... [6] . http://goo.gl... [7] . http://goo.gl... [8] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. p. 129. ISBN 0-553-38016-8. [9] . http://goo.gl... [10] Smith, Quentin (1988). “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe. ” Philosophy of Science. 55:1, pp. 39-57. (. http://goo.gl...)