Science Implies God's Existance

I haven’t done science only arguments debate in a while. My two arguments shall be from the nature of time and cosmology. Time The argument formulated in Modus Ponens is, 1: If the universe never began to exist, then God doesn’t exist. 2: The universe never began to exist C: God doesn’t exist. Premise One Not much time needs to be spent on this one. The premise follows according to our accepted definition. God is the “efficient cause of the contingent universe. ” This entails the universe began to exist, otherwise there could be no efficient cause of its existence. Premise Two This follows from the scientific evidence of Eternalism. Causality and time are very interwoven. In order for something to begin to exist, it must first not exist. However, under Eternalism, all states of time exist. There is simply no such thing as an entity not ontologically existing [1]. All events ontologically exist. Therefore, if Eternalism is true, all events exist and nothing can really come into being. The initial state of the universe would be analogous to inch one on a ruler. The ruler doesn’t begin to exist at inch one, as all inchs of the ruler exists. Another analogy is that a state like New York doesn’t begin to exist at its border. Its border is just one area in existing space, like the initial state of the universe is just one existing event in time out of many. This view of time is supported by modern physics. Equations from special relativity show that the value of T (time) is different depending on your reference frame. Values of T change depending on how close you are approaching the speed of light [2]. This has been observed in the Muon experiment. The Muon’s internal clock (decay rate) are different depending on how fast they are moving [3]. Different states of time exist for different observers. Experiments from quantum mechanics also verify premise two. Observers can choose to entangle particles in the past [4]. The particles don’t presently exist, as they’ve been destroyed. Yet, we can change the past configuration. This entails the past, and future exist (since when the particles existed, the future was determining their state) as well as the present. An even more amazing experiment was done by Ekaterina Moreva. His experiment demonstrated that change is something that’s a property within the universe. If we somehow transcended the universe, we wouldn’t observe any passage of time, we’d see all states of time [5][6]. Time is something that exists within the universe, external to the universe, all states of time would be observed. Conclusion Science heavily supports eternalism, which is incompatible with God’s existence. The initial state of the universe has always existed along with all other states of time on a block. It couldn’t have begun to exist, and therefore God doesn’t exist. Note that, this argument is NOT claiming the past is infinite. The past can very well be finite and everything still works. Cosmology The argument in a Modus Tollens format is, 1: If God exists, the universe is guaranteed to come into existence. 2: The universe wasn’t guaranteed to come into existence. C: God doesn’t exist. Premise One This premise is modest enough. If God is all powerful, it follows that whatever he wills to happen, must necessarily happen. If God wants the universe to come into being, it will happen regardless of anything else. The alternative is that God didn’t want to cause the universe. But, then he is either imperfect (He accidently created the universe) or not omnibenevolent (He didn’t care if other beings came to be). Both are not viable solutions Premise Two Modern Cosmology shows that the universe might not have came into existence. If we follow the laws of general relativity into the early universe, it entails that the earliest state of the universe was a singularity [7]. Within a singularity all of the laws of physics break down [8]. It is a completely inanimate state, devoid of order and completely unpredictable. This means there is no guarantee that the universe will come into being. The universe could have just as easily stayed a singularity or vanished entirely. However, one can object that the laws of general relativity don’t include quantum mechanics in its model. This is correct, but the premise still holds. In fact, it’s easier to prove the premise with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is inherently indeterministic. Events in quantum mechanics operate on probability [9]. If quantum mechanics was relevant in the early universe, it too wouldn’t have guaranteed the universe’s existence. There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that remove randomness as a fact of the particles, but these have many problems. They violate Occam’s razor by either making topics more complicated than they need to be (Bohmian mechanics does this with spin [10]) or by positing the existence of billions of parallel universes. Furthermore, Bohm’s mechanics only interprets the Schrodinger equation, not quantum field theory [11][12]. It is incomplete. It has no “mathematically sound version of quantum field theory. ” [13] which further indicates that we should use the Copenhagen interpretation. Lastly, if Quantum cosmology was a sound escape of this argument, it nonetheless isn’t a good position for the theist to be in. Hawking’s quantum cosmology and the Ali/Das model entail a beginningless universe [14][15]. Loop quantum gravity holds to the big bounce. This means the universe would die out and be reborn forever, the cause of the universe the previous universe[16]. String theory implies the universe came from a symmetry breaking event caused by a quantum fluctuation [17]. They all contradict theism. Conclusion Modern cosmology entails the universe might not have existed. If God created the universe, this would be false. Any attempted out like appealing to quantum cosmology only further harms the theist's position. The resolution is affirmed. Remember Pro, you don’t address these until round 3. You are to give your supporting arguments in this round. Sources [1] . https://books.google.com... [2] . http://www.phy.olemiss.edu... [3] . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [4] . http://www.livescience.com... [5] . https://medium.com... [6] . http://arxiv.org... [7] Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. p. 99. [8] . http://www.hawking.org.uk... [9] . http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com... [10] . http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu... [11] . http://arxiv.org... [12] . http://arxiv.org... [13] . http://www.bohmianmechanics.org... [14] . http://www.pbs.org... [15] . http://phys.org... [16]. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [17] . http://www.livescience.com...