Resolved: God Exists

RebuttalsCosmological ArgumentContingent Entities & Definite EntitiesIf everything is a contingent entity, how is God alone definitive? This is a bare assertion simply because the BoP is on Pro to prove that God is not contingent. Actual InfinitiesThe Hilbert Hotel problem merely shows that infinity does not act in the same way as regular numbers do. [1] Furthermore, the Grand Hotel paradox is also veridical, thus with an absurd conclusion. [1] Most arguments against the existence of absolute infinities are a priori assertions that merely show that absolute infinites have odd properties. [2] Ontological ArgumentEpistemological Possibility versus Metaphysical PossibilityOntology merely illustrates the epistemic possibility of the existence of God, while the concept of having objective reality relies on a metaphysical conclusion. The specific definition of “possible” that must be ascribed to this debate is metaphysical, objective possibility via. Rule 3, which effectively states that logical conclusions must be drawn. While in a philosophical scenario one might argue that epistemology is a derivative of logic and can be demonstrated via. Modal logic, that is only in mathematical principle and therefore acts as a falsidical argument. [3][4] An example of differentiation between epistemological possibility and metaphysical possibility: an + bn = cn, where n is an integer greater than 2. This is possible via. epistemic possibility, but not via. metaphysical possibility, viz. a similar ontological application entails that the equation *is* possible, but *only* epistemologically. Thus, by metaphysical possibility [in terms of perceptive objectivity, wherein the fact that x is contingent is ignored, hence not entailing *any* subjective conclusion], the above equation is *false*. [Once more, this existence is contingent but metaphysical and, hence, objective] Existence & Non-existenceThe ontological argument assumes existence is a predicate and a positive property, else entailing a possibility illustrated below; but existence being a positive property and a predicate are not proven. [5] The same application of ontology can mathematically prove the reverse conclusion: “God does not exist. ” It is *both* epistemologically and metaphysically possible in this scenario, unless it is *proven* that existence is a positive property. P1: It is possible that a necessarily non-existent God does not exist. P2: If P1, then God does not exist in some possible world. P3: If P2, then God does not exist in *any* possible world. C: God does not exist. [5] Existence in the MindIn C1, Pro makes a misinterpretation by stating God “either (A) exists in the mind, or (B) exists in both mind and reality. ” An imagination of God does *not* entail A or B; rather, it entails a conclusion wherein God is imagined, and nothing beyond that. “Exist” means to “be actual in *objective* reality. ” An agency x having objective reality in a subjective plane is a contradiction, because *any presence* in a subjective plane (eg. the mind) is, by definition, having subjective reality. As it is impossible to prove a contradiction, a possibility C *must* be provided, in which God has subjective presence. A is incoherent, but so is B. [This follows the definition of “exist” as provided in the debate] Therefore, this is a contradiction metaphysically and epistemologically. ConceivabilityThe very argument of conceivability resides on a presumption that God, by definition, is “the greatest conceivable being. ” That definition is not provided in Round 1. The assertion of this *must* be proven, or it remains a bare assertion. Religious ExperienceMathematical Possibility & Burden of ProofThis argument *ignores* scientific analyses of possibility and stays within a mathematical assertion. A mere mathematical assertion is not proof; proof must be objective, not subjective. The scientific analyses of the same may be seen in the “Arguments” section below. “Proof” is defined as “evidence establishing the truth of a statement. ” [6] This does not establish the truth of the rate of possibility of one mystic telling the definite truth. Hence, this argument is illogical. ArgumentsThe Big BangProof of the Big BangIn 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. CMB radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions. The surface of last scattering corresponding to emission of the CMB occurs shortly after recombination, the epoch when neutral hydrogen becomes stable. Prior to this, the universe comprised a hot dense photon-baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles. In October 2014, a measurement of the B-mode polarization, signals of primordial gravitational waves, at a frequency of 150 GHz, was published by the POLARBEAR experiment. Models of cosmic inflation predict that such primordial gravitational waves should appear. Primordial gravitational waves are the result of three things: inflationary expansion of space itself, reheating after inflation, and turbulent fluid mixing of matter and radiation. Proof of inflation is proof of the emergence of the universe from a singularity, a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume, created from the energy inherent to gravity. [7][8] Quantum FluctuationsEnergy can be produced by random, uncaused quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are ripples across inherently existent gravity (gravity is always uncaused) that produce energy strong enough to concentrate into a gravitational singularity that begins to radiate energy as Hawking radiation. [9] In further explanation of this, let me illustrate the function of quantum fluctuations. due to the possibility of uncaused quantum fluctuations, there need not be a personal cause for the Big Bang. If there need not be a personal cause to the Big Bang, with a lack of evidence for a personal cause, we can discredit a personal cause entirely. I will show how there can be uncaused quantum mechanical fluctuations. What are quantum fluctuations? In classical physics, energy is conserved, i. e. it can neither be created nor destroyed. [10] Therefore, it would seem that the sudden appearance of energy, as required by the Big Bang model, would violate the conservation of energy. However, physicists think the uncertainty principle offers a way around this problem. [11] There is a formulaic interpretation of the uncertainty principle. Let ΔE represent the uncertainty in the amount of energy and Δt represent the uncertainty in the time. Then the product ΔEΔt is approximately equal to ħ, where ħ = h/2π, and h is Planck’s constant. [12] Planck’s constant has the value 6.62606957 x 10-34 Joule-second. Planck’s constant has the appropriate units of energy and time (Joule, second). The uncertainties are vanishingly small on a macroscopic scale. That is why the uncertainty principle is not observable in the macroscopic world. On the scale of subatomic particles, the uncertainties can be large compared to the quantities involved, so the consequences of the uncertainty principle can be significant on the microscopic scale. This is the effect of a quantum fluctuation. These fluctuations are caused randomly, released from the quantum vacuum. Explained in a simpler manner, a quantum fluctuation is a change in the amount of energy in a point of space originating in the quantum vacuum. These fluctuations generally affect thermodynamic systems. Since the change originates in the preexistent quantum vacuum (with minuscule amounts of uncaused measurable energy), the fluctuations need not be triggered by a personal cause and perfectly explains the Big Bang. [13] Law of ParsimonyThe Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that the simplest explanation is a priori most likely. [14] Metaphysical Naturalism vs. TheismThe deductive argument via. the Law of Parsimony states that metaphysical naturalism is simpler than a monotheistic view, viz. metaphysical naturalism entails the physical universe and its laws, whereas theism entails the physical universe, its laws, and God. Probability ArgumentVia. quantum fluctuations, etc. I have demonstrated that the existence of God is not necessary. If x is not necessary *and* is a scientifically unsupported/disproven claim, then x is improbable. The resolution is negated. References1. . http://goo.gl...2. Martin, Michael. (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 104. ISBN 0-87722-943-8.3. . http://www.mit.edu...4. Inwagen, P. V. (1998). “Modal Epistemology. ” Philosophical Studies 92:1-2, pp. 67-84.5. . http://goo.gl...6. “Proof. ” The New Oxford Dictionary of English.7. Penzias, A. A. ; Wilson, R. W. (1965). “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s”. Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.8. . http://goo.gl...9. Hawking, S. ; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2010). ISBN-0-553-80537-1.10. Empedocles (490-430 BCE), et al. 11. . http://goo.gl...12. . http://goo.gl...13. . http://goo.gl...14. . http://goo.gl...