God Exists

== Response == Origin: Con counters my claim of the universe's finite past by suggesting that the past could be eternal. Con gives no real evidence for the viability of this claim other than describing the theoretical possibility of a philosophy called "Eternalism." Ironically, the source Con sites for this concept is a website dedicated to refuting Eternalism, which made my research very easy. My opponent's own source concludes, "we have no good grounds for dismissing the passage of time as an illusion. It has none of the marks of an illusion. Rather, it has all the marks of an objective process whose existence is independent of the existence of we humans." [1] Con's source rightly identifies that if time is an illusion, and does not pass sequentially, then we should be able to perceive the future as clearly as the past. If there is no passage of time, only temporal orderings, then we should have just as many vivid "memories" of future events as past ones. But we do not. We clearly perceive past events, flowing in sequential order, into the present, and face an unknowable future. All human empirical observation confirms that time does pass, and gives no basis for accepting Eternalism. Furthermore, time travel must be possible under Eternalism because, as Con says, "past, present, and future are equally real, no moment in time ever ceases to exist." Unlike the model of Presentisim, Eternalism posits that the past remains a real, tangible state that can be returned to from a present or future position. But this creates the "can you change the past?" dilemma. If the past remains a tangible place that one could, theoretically, return to and interact with, then you would be able go back to kill your younger self. But if you did, how could your [now dead] future self have returned to commit the murder in the first place? It is circular logic, which suggests Eternalism is unreasonable at best and completely false at worst. Con's argument here is very strange and highly theoretical/philosophical. There is no evidence for it. Con then addresses my use of the BGV-theorem. He claims the theorem proves nothing, and quotes Vilenkin as saying it would be too "simplistic" to conclude that God exists directly from his mathematical proof. I agree. That was not my goal. I was simply using Vilenkin's theorem as a step in showing that he universe must have a beginning, which ultimately gives weight to a "First Cause" argument. My opponent tries to say the BGV-theorem does not conclude anything. To that, I can only quote Vilenkin himself in his conclusion: "Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems the answer to that question is probably yes." [2] Now, I am aware that the BGV-theorem only takes into account universe models with classical metrics. There are alternatives if quantum mechanics are brought into the picture, but at that point we would once again be dancing into the purely theoretical. I'm not here to debate about math. I'm simply offering the BGV-theorem as strong evidence that the universe probably had a beginning. Since we have no evidence to suggest time does not exist, we also must accept the logic that it is impossible to traverse an infinite series of events (therefore, there must be a beginning). It does not matter if Con can identify theoretically possible alternatives to the finite model - we are debating about what is more reasonable. Con must make a case for why their alternatives are more reasonable than what all of humanity observes on a daily basis. Fine Tuning: My opponent offers a 4th possibility for the origin of the universe and goes on to say there could be infinite possibilities. This is not really an argument. Once again, we are searching for what is more reasonable, not just what is possible. Con is simply throwing out as many options as they can think of without giving reasons why they are likely to be true. One of the most common phrases my opponent uses in this section is "might be." This is not a solid claim or argument. I "might be" a talking elephant - but unless I give evidence for that claim, it is not reasonable to accept it. Con has given no evidence to accept any of these "infinite possibilities." Con turns my claim that there is "no logical or empirical evidence" for necessity and says the same applies to God. That is, of course, the whole point of this debate, and it is Con's burden to expose the supposed lack of evidence by refuting me. They attempt to do this by claiming that if there was evidence for God, "the newspapers would have gone batsh1t crazy." The deductive reasoning of this claim would look like this: "If there was evidence for God, then the newspapers would go batsh1t crazy. There is no evidence for God, so the newspapers have not gone batsh1t crazy." Right? Wrong. This is a logical fallacy called Denying the Antecedent. Denying the premise does not automatically negate the conclusion. Regardless, I would say reality is quite the opposite - perceived evidence for God is perhaps the one thing that humans have gone the most crazy about since the beginning of time. The hysteria surrounding the Pope's visit to Washington D.C. this week is clear evidence of this. Finally, Con invokes Ockham's Razor to say that Theism posits more entities than necessary, so design is not preferred. Really? Theism is the least extravagant explanation by far. At the risk of over-simplifying my position, Theism gives the most basic origin theory of all: "God did it." Atheism gives no explanation, and no explanation is not a simpler explanation. [2] Ockham's Razor most certainly does not support Con's position. Chance: Con counters my use of Penrose's ratio simply by saying it "seems fishy." They then complain that the source websites are "hosted by Intelligent Design proponents" and contain no substance. Do I also get to complain then that my opponent cites pro-Atheism websites (http://commonsenseatheism.com...)? I find this incredible, since the source I sighted was a video where Penrose explains in great detail for over 4 minutes exactly what substance his calculation contains. Furthermore, Roger Penrose is an atheist, so there should be no suspicion of bias just because the cited video happens to be on an I.D. website. I apologize that Con finds my point "fishy," but that is hardly a rebuttal. But I'll play along. Perhaps Penrose's ratio is inaccurate. The broader point, and one that is largely beyond dispute, is that the odds of the universe existing by chance are incredible. They are beyond incredible - they are astronomical (no pun intended). When returning this debate to the central question of what is more reasonable, Con must give evidence for why it is more reasonable to accept the incredibly small probability of random chance over design. They have not done so. In the section my opponent titles "A Misguided Argument?" Con tries to show that fine tuning would only prove a being who is powerful and knowledgeable enough to tune constraints - falling far short of omnipotence and omniscience. But they miss that these are power attributes, not power constraints. Yes, it suggests a being powerful enough to tune constraints, but it says nothing about additional power. A being who can tune constraints likely has power to do many other things as well. It does not follow that a fine tuning God has no power to control other things. Con then accuses me of not proving a loving God or creation. I don't have to prove it. I simply have to show why belief in god is more reasonable than non-belief. I can easily turn these same charges on my opponent, since BoP is shared: prove there is not a loving God, prove there was not a creation. Meaning, Purpose, Morality: Much to my shock, Con has affirmed the existence of objective morality. This would, seemingly, derail their entire argument of an uncreated universe, because objective moral truths cannot exist as products of random, purposeless chance. Con says that moral truths were neither created nor natural facts. I would therefore request that my opponent expands on this point, because as of now they offer no explanation for these claims. Conclusion: I will conclude by re-clarifying my arguments. Some of these are necessary inferences from my Round 1 case: 1. The universe must have a finite past. It therefore had a cause. 2. The universe cannot create itself, and nothing cannot produce something. Therefore, something existed before the universe. This something was the "First Cause" of all things. 3. This "First Cause" must have been outside space and time, because space and time must be finite. 4. Something that is outside of space and time which created everything that exists and everything that we know has "all the power" and "all the knowledge." 5. The universal experience of morality, meaning, and purpose (which Con agrees with) is evidence that a law giver with perfect moral understanding exists. A being of perfect moral understanding must be loving and wholly good, by definition. 6. Non-theism cannot account for 1-5, therefore theism is more reasonable. Back to you, Con. [1] http://www.pitt.edu... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...