God exists

R2 RebuttalsThe ontological Argument (OA) The OA assumes what it wants to prove. It posits the simple ability to think of something perfect directly proves the existence of this perfect being. Thinking about something cannot prove that thing's existence. I’ve never understood the supposed difficulty in refuting the OA for god’s existence. Apart from the fact that it’s an argument from logic and reason alone, rather than from any actual verifiable evidence – which should rule it out as an argument to be considered seriously anyway in my view – it never seemed to make any sense. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind – not greater than a God who actually exists. The argument relies entirely on equivocation - the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning, while glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The argument relies on there being two meanings of the word “God,” and it slips between these definitions as it suits him. What are these two meanings of the word “God”? They are a god who exists in reality and a god who exists only in the mind. If you look at specific words in general you will notice that your version of the OA contains a lot of "ifs" you have stated that because there is a possibility that a 'maximally great' exists and because there is a possibility that a 'maximally great' being exists in the actual world this means that a maximally great being exists. Once the OA is deduced it makes less sense and the argument fails.In my opponent's "S5 argument he also relies on a lot of assumptions. May I remind him that there is no way to prove or disprove God. Just because there is a possibility that God exists it does not mean that God exists. He has also asked me to depict a black hole as Neil Tyson depicted it as inside the black hole in his novel. This is unlikely and he has not provided any evidence as to why I should view a black hole like this and why he is right. My opponents role in this debate is not to show that God is a possibility. His role is to prove that God exists. There is a possibility that I am a robot plotting to take over the world with my army of robots. This is unlikely but it is a possibility - just like the existence of God. He has provided possibilities but has not provided any facts and has also failed to give me a reason to why I should assume parts of his argument.KCAThe focus of this argument obviously lies in the problem of the universe 'beginning to exist' or 'coming into existence'.The problem arises only on the presupposition of what in philosophical terms is called 'presentism' otherwise known as the dynamic or the tensed view of time. In more modern terms this has been branded the 'A-Theory of Time'. The A-Theory of time holds that the past just as the future does not exist; the only ontological commitment it has is the commitment to the existence of the present moment. On this view of time the universe would have to 'come into existence' at a certain time since the universe is past finite. This means there is a past boundary of time before which the universe doesn't exist, so to say, the universe has an absolute first moment. On the philosophical view of eternalism, nowadays described as the 'B-Theory of Time', its not only the present moment that exists but rather, past, present and future exist all together. On this view the universe doesn't come into existence, rather, the universe is seen as multi-dimensional object that tenselessly exist and doesn't ever 'come into being' but simply exists.Dr. Craig concedes this by stating:"From start to finish, the KCA is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived" According to this quote by Craig himself, if the B-Theory of Time is the correct view on the nature of time the first premise of the KCA: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is false. The universe still has a beginning in time but it doesn't become actual at this point in time, it rather exists tenselessly as a multi-dimensional object.TAThe problem with the TA is that it ignores root causes. If God exists to fulfill his own purpose, which is to design all things, then he would have to have designed himself. Therefore, using the TA there is nothing prior to God, no cause that led to God's existence. With no explanation for God other than the final cause, the final purpose, it is difficult to say how God manifested in the first place. Even with the tomato plant, it certainly has a final cause, but it was clearly caused by seeds, soil, water, and sun. The TA for the existence of God gives no physical evidence of how God came to be. The TA only proposes that God exists because God's purpose is/was to design all things, including himself. In other words, God was designed to exist (designed by himself?) and therefore he exists. The TA fails because there is nothing/nobody to design God. For the TA to succeed, the philosopher would have to explain how God got his design/purpose/final cause in the first place. It's difficult to explain how God could have designed himself to be the designer of all things (including himself). Following the TA, wouldn't God need to be designed to design himself to be the designer? Again, my opponent has continued to jump to conclusion and make assumptions. He has listed steps 6 - 10. 6-8 can be agreed by atheists and theists. 9 jumps to the conclusion that God exists because the universe has a cause."One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is not just an idea but a scientific theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence." There is the cosmic microwave background, which is an echo of the big bang; there is the infinite expansion of the cosmos, which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin; and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium etc. , can all be calculated using the theory. That still leaves a puzzle. What caused the Big Bang? For years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing. s://cdn-images-1.medium.com...*INtAsuxJF7cMqoCBmesz-w.jpeg" alt="" /> The proof is based on a set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) equation. In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics— quantum mechanics and general relativity—in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other. The breakthrough came in the 1960s when the physicists J. Wheeler and B. DeWitt combined these previously incompatible ideas in a mathematical framework now known as the WDW equation. The new work of Dongshan and co explores some solutions to this equation. At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows an empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations what physicists call the metastable false vacuum. When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears. But if the bubble can grow to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible. Does the WDW equation allow this? “We prove that once a true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,” Dongshan. Their approach is to consider a spherical bubble that is entirely described by its radius. They then derive the equation that describes the rate at which this radius can expand. They then consider 3 scenarios for the geometry of the bubbleR02;—R02; closed, open or flat. They find solutions in which the bubble can expand and thereby reach a size in which a universe can form—a Big Bang. That’s a result that cosmologists should be able to build on. An important factor in today’s models of the universe is called the cosmological constant. This is a term that describes the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was introduced by Einstein and later abandoned by him after Hubble’s discovery that the universe was expanding. Most cosmologists assumed that the cosmological constant was 0. More recently, cosmologists have found evidence that something is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, implying that the cosmological constant cannot be 0. So any new theory of the universe must allow for a non-0 value of the cosmological constant. What plays the role of the cosmological constant in Dongshan new theory? They say a quantity known as the quantum potential plays the role of cosmological constant in the new solutions. This potential comes from an idea developed by the physicist D. Bohm. This theory reproduces all of the conventional predictions of quantum mechanics but at the price of accepting an additional term called the quantum potential. It has the effect of making quantum mechanics entirely deterministic since the quantum potential can be used to work out things like the actual position of the particle. Mainstream physicists have never taken to Bohm’s idea because its predictions are identical to the conventional version of the theory so there is no way of telling them apart. It forces physicists to accept a probabilistic explanation for the nature of reality, something they generally accept. The conclusion we come to is that the universe could have come without the intervention of God. All the sources are in the comments due to the character limit. R3 rebuttals and conclusions will be posted in the last round.