God Exists

CLARIFICATION a) Soundness of Logic This is in response to Pro’s “counter-argument in response to [my] usage of logic.” Rule 2 says there shall be no K's of the topic, and this is in direct violation of the rule. First, I must clarify what a K is. “[A] kritik usually challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory.” [1] The soundness of logic, reason and observation is an obvious assumption in *any* debate setting unless shown otherwise. Thus, this entire offense on the soundness of logic is in direct violation of Rule 2, as it is a kritik. “The idea that all things must be proven via empirical methods is itself a philosophical position which cannot be supported by empirical methods.” This is also a K and, thus, shall not be considered. b) Definition of God I shall address this based on Pro’s conclusion. What scripture claims is irrelevant to this debate. While one can add properties of the Bible in this debate, this debate’s definition of God takes precedence. In the last line, Pro challenges the definition of God involving the property of ‘immensely great’, saying the property is not required. But as, by this debate’s definition, Pro must justify each and every property of God’s in this debate, Pro argues against himself. The definitions are not ‘set in stone’ or assumed, as that would commit the fallacy of begging the question. Each and every property ascribed to God must be justified. Pro’s two teleological arguments do not justify the need for a God that is omnipotent or objectively ‘great’. They merely defend an intelligent designer, and that is not enough. R1) Genetic Information Evolution can pass on genetic information from each generation of species. This transfer of genetic information that allows new cells to evolve occurs via. cell division. How can cell division transfer genetic information? Pro answers this question himself. “It was first discovered that DNA transfers could modify bacteria behaviour. The double helix structure of the DNA molecule, which explains how it can be copied, was discovered in 1953, and over the course of the 1960s we gained more and more insight into how this information was read. It is indeed fascinating that such a simple structure can help us to understand heredity. Some have forgotten that this transmission of information is nothing outside a given cellular context and in a given environment.” [2] Evolution can also produce new genetic information. Genomes with terminal protein are ‘vehicles’ of information transfer in genes. [3] According to a study published in the Scientific American, biologists *observed* the creation of new genes and genetic information via. evolution. [4] “In a study in the journal Science, Andersson, Roth and their colleagues demonstrate the process in lab-grown Salmonella enterica. They grew one strain missing a gene key for expressing the essential amino acid tryptophan. The strain needed to rely on another gene, which had a primary job but also a weak ability to take on the missing gene's work. The researchers encouraged the bacteria to duplicate the overworked gene, and its copies gathered mutations—some of which enhanced tryptophan production. At the end of a year's time (3,000 generations later) the bacteria had one gene that did the original job and a second that had evolved a new primary function—manufacturing tryptophan.” [5] “Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator.” This is refuted by my demonstration that evolution can *create* new genetic information and genes without an “act of intelligence.” My position is one that information can be generated by materialistic means, e.g. evolution via. natural selection. The researchers did not play a direct part in the creation of the new genes, which was purely via. stimulated evolution. Evolution can be stimulated naturally, as proven by the study. R2) Complexity a) Core Arguments No conclusive evidence has been brought forth for God having created this irreducible complexity either. And the chicken-or-egg question applies to a creationist rendering as well. This argument doesn't, justifies God’s existence in any manner. The “baffling circle” described by Popper also does not justify God. It is merely something which seems inexplicable and theories have been made to explain it. Creationism also does not provide a valid explanation for the same. My opponent is attacking evolution, but that, in no way, justifies the existence of God. This is irrelevant to the resolution, and would have been a proper argument in a debate on evolution. b) Justification of Evolution Universal Genetic Code The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. [6] The genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. [7] As seen above, the encoded genetic information is almost exactly identical. [8] Evolution is the only theory that explains this. Genetic Commonalities The closest relations in genomes between H. sapiens and other mammalians is shown in the robust chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). “The DNA sequence differences between humans and chimpanzees is about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Typical human and chimp protein homologs differ in only an average of two amino acids.” [9] This means a difference of about 95-96% between the genome of H. sapiens and P. troglodytes. [10] “Sequence differences from the human genome were confirmed to be ∼1% in areas that can be precisely aligned, representing ∼35 million single base-pair differences. Some 45 million nucleotides of insertions and deletions unique to each lineage were also discovered, making the actual difference between the two genomes ∼4%.” [11] Below is the comparison between a chimpanzee and human gene. [12] Evolution is, again, the sole theory that explains the graduation of genetic commonalities. [13] C1) Non-Cognitivism of Greatness Pro accepts that greatness is subjective, but Pro needs to demonstrate objective greatness with a standard. Pro defends a standard internal to God. I demonstrated how a standard internal to God is logically fallacious, as it begs the question. I have demonstrated how objective greatness is impossible with a transcendent God. If God is transcendent, then God is transcendent forever, and does not have the ability to enter the universe, since that would be contrary to the definition, and omnipotence is the ability to perform all logically possible actions. If greatness is impossible, as said, either God is not great or he doesn’t exist. Since God has to be great by definition, he doesn’t exist. Even if God is ‘maximally great’, or ‘greater than everything else’, that does not justify his being immensely great. Pro asserts that since God created the universe, he is to be considered objectively ‘great’. This is a bare assertion, and, thus, is logically fallacious. C2) Incoherence of a Caused Universe a) Requirements for Causation “Creating time” is incoherent. As Sean Carroll notes, time is required for anything to be coherently ‘created’. So without time and the laws of nature, causation is *impossible*. Pro begs the question by assuming I support that the universe was ‘caused naturally’. My position is that the universe was not caused and need not be caused to come into existence. Pro *assumes* there has to be a cause by claiming I support a naturalistic cause of the universe, while I don’t. Even if God is eternal, causation is incoherent without time. I’m not saying God can’t exist without time here, I assert that causality is incoherent without time. This is irrelevant to my argument. b) Eternalism God cannot be the absolute moving reference point as there is *no* absolute moving reference point, according to eternalism. Pro accepts the findings that the B-series is true, and if eternalism is true, coherently speaking of change or causation is incoherent. This is virtually dropped. Without change, causation is incoherent. Pro begs the question here as well, and I accept that naturalistic causation is equally incoherent. But that naturalistic eternalism is incoherent is a bare assertion and is not justified. C3) Argument from Atemporal Minds God is outside of the universe and his mind cannot logically function in the form of processes. This is the exact point I was making. Therefore, God cannot exist. But Pro denies the conclusion by begging the question, assuming the existence of God, which is precisely what I am arguing against. All processes are temporal, which was demonstrated by me. This has been dropped and baselessly denied. The conclusion follows from the premises. Pro accepts the premises and denies the conclusion based entirely on the assumption that God exists, and that is logically fallacious. Omniscience is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with God as defined. C4) Law of Parsimony a) Deductive Pro’s point is that a theist must assume various other things. That doesn’t refute the deductive argument from parsimony, it strengthens it, as it adds to the number of assumptions theism has, over metaphysical naturalism. Thus, this argument is strengthened, not refuted, and it still stands. b) Subjective I have addressed greatness and intelligence above. It is subject to question whether omnipotence, being limitless, is limited by logical paradoxes, thus it may be (admittedly not definitely) complex. This would mean adding many further ad hoc hypotheses and subjectively adding to the complexity of theism. Conclusion The resolution is resoundingly negated. The next round shall be Pro’s final round of debate. Sources in comments.