The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists - part 2

1. Nothing I am aware of what Pro pointed out, which I already specified in the previous round. If my opponent thinks that my use of "nothing" violates their definition of "nothing", they may consider it an argument not related to their two premises. 2. Multiverse Correct me if I am wrong, but the title of the debate is "The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists". Accepting the multiverse as a potential cause of the universe is enough to support Con's thesis, as the "the universe needs a creator" premise is falsified and therefore cannot lead to the "God exists" conclusion. The case could be that God created the multiverse, but that again does not lead us to the conclusion that God exists via the "the universe needs a creator" premise. Perhaps my opponent did not phrase themselves correctly. But, in order to not let my opponent down by resting assured on my current debate advantage, I shall not stop here. "We have already established that it is impossible to traverse an infinite series of past events, so there could not be innumerable universes in the past - there still had to be a first one." Not at all. Infinite past universes are too a possibility, hypothesizing that our universe was created by the multiverse, which was created by a multi-multiverse, created by a multi-multimultiverse and so on. The B theory of time, if true, favours this claim. But that's for us to see below. 3. Luminiferous ether My opponent claims that the effects of relativity are as undetectable as the ether proposed by LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) is. The problem here is, while relativity is deemed as a physics law, the ether is supposed to be something actually existing in space. We cannot yet "detect" gravity (quantum theory of gravity is not included) or thermodynamics, but we accept them as laws. On the other hand, an ether, namely a supposed medium through which light propagates (as the name "luminiferous" suggests), if existing, should be something observable by some means, as is usual matter, the medium through which sound waves travel. Since Lorentz himself states that we cannot observe the ether, though not having disproved it, we choose the laws of relativity. My opponent relates the ether to dark matter and spacetime, but there is a significant difference between the three. Firstly, we have dark matter and dark energy, which are hypothetical but immense amounts of matter and energy needed to be detected so that our known reality agrees with observation. There can well be other factors that have contorted our conclusions, but, as long as no other hypotheses are proposed and rid us of the need of dark matter and dark energy, the aforementioned will remain the prevailing hypotheses, though quite noticeably not a factual theory until proven true. Secondly, there is the hypothetical ether. Though, when proposed, it was quite a rational and successful explanation for the nature of light, relativity has made it unnecessary. Relativity's equations lead us to the same results as LET's, but without requiring an ether, while sufficiently explaining gravity, something that, as far as I am aware, LET and the various ether hypotheses have not yet achieved [1]. Then, we have spacetime. The difference between the ether and spacetime, the fourth dimension, is that, while the ether is deemed undetectable for unknown reasons when it is supposed to be actually material, spacetime is a dimension, which we can, contrary to Pro's claims, observe in cases such as the effects of matter (see the gravitational effects of massive bodies, which cannot be explained by Newtonian physics). To summarise, what I wanted to show above is that Lorentz's ether is an unnecessary attempt to explain several things, such as the nature of light, which have been more adequately explained by relativity, without the need of an undetectable ether, or rather a fixed reference frame. If, though, my opponent disagrees, I would like them to explain what makes LET more preferable to relativity and how does the ether expound gravity, agreeing with observation, in cases such as those of gravitational waves [2] or distortions of space and time. If the ether is proven to not overwhelm relativity, the latter will be accepted as the prevailing theory. I would also like to ask, even if we accept a fixed reference frame, how would it suggest what Pro addressed in R1 an underlying, absolute "ether" time? In brief, due to the numerous variations of the ether hypothesis, I request my opponent fully analyzes their concept of the ether. 3. Ultimate reference frame and train experiment My opponent claims that the lightning bolts do strike simultaneously. How can they be sure about that? This is merely what one would see when outside of the train, where the narrator too is apparently located. On the other hand, someone who is on the train would clearly see one lightning striking before the other. Why prefer one reference frame and name it absolute? This is only a preoccupied viewpoint stemming from our everyday experience, which we have acquired living on a certain reference frame. Both observers are equally right, for they just are located in a different frame of reference. 4. I still do not understand why does Pro insist that we should not be able to perceive causes if the B theory of time is true. Everything we have perceived has happened within our universe, with time being a property of which. I will explain myself differently; with time being an illusion which is perceived in the universe, causes are too an illusion. Since we perceive time, we perceive causes. I do not understand how does that, as Pro stated, "demolish" science. "Cause" is merely a word we use to describe our experience based on the illusion of time. Instead of Cause => Result, without the illusion of time, we have State 1 <=> State 2. But since we do perceive time, it is impossible for us to fathom Result => Cause, or rather, State 2 <=> State 1. 5. Relativity and B theory of time According to the train experiment, relativity does show that there is no absolute reference frame. Furthermore, length contraction and time dilation are too inconsistent with the A theory of time. Therefore, I do not see how does empirical evidence favour A theory without ignoring the above effects. B theory, on the contrary, is able to allow for the aforementioned, and therefore is more likely than the A theory. Sources: [1] Mechanical explanations of gravitation, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Gravitational waves, LIGO https://www.ligo.caltech.edu...