God Exists

Thanks Pro. Going to address any unrebutted arguments in this round. Pro’s Case Probability Argument Pro has dropped my rebuttals to Pro’s argument from fine-tuning, he gives a single statement: “the fifty two card hand is nowhere near as low as the probability of the universe existing I would address but I have no letters.” Which tells me that Pro again has missed the point of my rebuttal. It doesn’t matter how unlikely life is to exist, just like it doesn’t matter how likely it is to get any specific random 52-card hand. It only matters if we attribute some special outcome to it (e.g. me prophesising that I would deal myself a specific 52 card hand before I even shuffled and dealt out the deck). And even if we attributed a special outcome to it, it still would be insufficient since Pro is assuming only one, or a few “chances” at getting a universe with the right conditions for life without justification. If there were a Grayham’s number of opportunities for a universe with the right conditions to arise, then life existing in at least one of them would be unsurprising. Information Content Pro has dropped my rebuttals here too. Irreducible Complexity Pro’s argument here seems to go something like: Life contains examples of irreducible complexity (IC) All things irreducibly complex (IC) could not have evolved. If any living structure did not evolve, then it was intelligently designed This intelligent designer is God. Pro’s argument requires multiple assumptions and steps to get to the conclusion “God exists”. One of the most significant ones is that an intelligent designer mandates a God in the first place. Any non-deity level of intelligence comparable or superior to humans would be sufficient for this. My objections to 1 & 2 depend on how “irreducible complexity” is defined. If by irreducibly complex it would mean that a system losing a part would lose all function (e.g. blood clotting cascade, or bacterial flagellum as Pro cites), then I can safely accept P1 as true and argue P2 is just false. Because the fidelity of the system as it is now in no way rules out a gradual evolutionary process to obtain it for the following reasons: A. Reducible Complexity Virtually all “irreducibly complex” systems do actually function without several proteins or parts they originated with, just with a reduced efficacy. Even the bacterial flagellum system cited itself works with fewer proteins than it currently had, and additional proteins giving improved efficacy.[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] Perfect systems are not needed for natural selection to work, only that it gives an organism a greater chance of reproduction than one that doesn’t. B. Same parts, new function Many of the parts within the flagellum (and virtually all proposed irreducibly complex structures) are actually found in systems that use those parts for a different function. For example 10 protein components of the bacterial flagellum (a bacterial flagellum with most of its parts removed) has homologous proteins found in the type-three secretion system [http://www.nature.com...]. While the actual pathway for evolution may not be via. this intermediate, it demonstrated in principle that natural selection doesn’t even need the indetmediate structures to serve the same function as their present-day counterparts. Thus proving that “a bacterial flagellum without part “X” or “Y” will not allow the bacteria to swim is insufficient for demonstrating that evolution via. natural selection cannot produce it. C. Irreducible complexity arising via. later adaptation. If we assume a system containing three parts “X”, “Y”, “Z”, each part is necessary for it to perform its existing function (say, to allow a bacteria to swim, albeit slowly). The addition of part “W” would allow the system to function as a very efficient swimming tool. Thus, evolution via. a single step gives the structure “XYZW”, four parts that allows the structure to swim. Now, evolution will favor adaptations of these parts that will further improve its efficacy, each part will form an adapted part (X2, Y2, and so on). However this comes with tradeoffs, we end up gradually with the structure “X2-W2-Y2-Z2”, a system that can swim much more efficiently than before.Now if we remove “part W” from this system, we end up with X2- Y2-Z2. However this system is completely different to its original state, the shape tradeoffs would possible result in a system that will fail to perform any function for the organism. None of this is outside of what evolution can yield, so again, irredicuble complexity is insuficcient to demonstrate that it is intelligently designed. Con’s Case Whether or not God exists separate from tensed fasts, or is reconcilable with them, ir irrelevant. The argument is about whether or not the universe itself had a cause. That is the only property of God (that he is a being that created the universe) this argument refutes. God can be perfectly coherent with a tenseless universe if God’s definition does not require that he have created the universe, but it does, which is how mu argument is formulated. Again I ask Pro to specify which of my premises in my first round Pro is actually trying to rebut. His arguments miss the mark again, despite being prompted last round to be specific in what in my argument he is trying to disprove. Pro attempts to use the Kalam Cosmological argument as a rebuttal, so I will address each premise individually: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause “Seems to be true” is not an argument. Barely any justification is given for this premise, and this flies in the face of everything I have argued in the previous two rounds on how this is not the case even if the universe is finite, or has a “beginning”. This is because “beginning to exist” can only really be said coherently as the universe had a “first moment in time”. This there was never a moment in time that there was no universe, even if the universe is finite in time. This is because the dimensions of time are part of the space-time of the universe. It is equivalent to asking what is “North of the North Pole”, the north pole defines North, so this is meaningless. Similarly, to ask what is before the time that the universe existed is also meaningless. Secondly, causes require time, and a direction of time (from entropy) to be coherent. Absent these, it is impossible to argue if anything requires a cause, which is exactly the case Pro proposes absent the universe. Even if empirical data form inside the universe, where there is space, time and the laws of physics, does justify things that “begin to exist” to require causes within the universe, there is no argument to be made this applies to the universe as a whole, where we don’t have any of these conditions. That’s like stating that all things dropped “fall to the ground”, and then attempting to apply those same generalisations to outer space. 2. The universe began to exist For this to actually refute my argument, Pro would need to argue that there was a time when the universe did not exist. None of Pro’s arguments here actually attempt to demonstrate this, only that there is a “first moment” in the universe. So I can concede all of Pro’s arguments here and not have an issue. B-Series vs. A-Series of time “objective time any longer or shorter. if I am in danger and adrenaline causes a longer experience, a minute is still a minute without fail regardless of my perception of it's length.” I made this as a counterargument against Pro’s rebuttal of “We experience time in a rigid series” as evidence of A-Theory. We just don’t, our perception of time depends on our memories. In B theory of time, a second is also a second. Relativity Out of time, so rushing this. Either we accept a privileged reference frame and existence of an undetectable “Ether” for time if we were to adjust findings of relativity, or we accept the speed of light is constant and the laws of physics are the same everywhere. We have found the latter to be correct. Thus, A-Series cannot work. A more blunt demonstration of this is the effect of time dilation. A person who accelerates towards the speed of light, and returns to Earth would not age anywhere near as much as a person that remained on the Earth would. If time has an objective passing reference, then how does Pro intent to square the fact that it objectively passes faster for objects moving at different speeds? The clocks they wear will read different times when the person returns, thus A-Series presentism is falsified.