The Existence of God

A debate is about whether a resolution is true. Pro proposes the resolution and tries to convince the voters in the debate that they should act to approve the resolution. Pro has the burden of proof. It is like a trial in that the default condition is that the resolution is not proved, similar to a "presumption of innocence." If Pro fails to prove the resolution, then the resolution fails. This is done according to rules of debate. The rules of debate and the methods of judging are explained in the debate.org HELP menu. Generally, logical arguments are considered more compelling than unsupported statements of belief, and insults are conduct violations lose points and may eventually result in the debater being banned from the site. The place for unsupported statements and insults is on a personal blog, not in a debate. The mutually agreed resolution for this debate is "There must be a god that created the universe." In the second round, Pro conceded that the resolution is false. Pro states two beliefs: 1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause. Pro does not say why he holds either belief. We are left to suppose that he thinks they are commonsense. The belief that nothing is infinite is not commonsense, because we know that hundreds of millions of people, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jains, do not subscribe to it. Beyond that, the scientific consensus embraces the concept of things being infinite. Until relatively recently, the Steady State Theory was the predominant scientific theory of the universe, and that theory supposes that the universe always existed. Scientists who now believe in the Big Bang theory largely refrain from asserting what happened before the Big Bang. The possibility remains in science that the universe always existed. Thus Pro's belief is neither commonsense nor supported by science. Pro's belief that "everything has a cause" is commonsense, because that is what we see in the everyday world around us. However, science has already proved that many things occur which defy the expectations build from everyday experience. One example discussed is curvature of space and time caused by gravity, as described by General Relativity. Other examples, well proved, are wave-particle duality, time dilation described by Special Relativity, and quantum theory. Each of these is true, and each defies our everyday experience. Consequently, it is not safe to rely upon everyday experience in supposing that everything has a cause. Quantum fluctuation is a scientific theory that embraces the possibility that there are events without causes. The theory is unproven, but to my knowledge no scientist rules it out on the grounds that that it violates a principle of requiring a cause. Similarly, a current theory of dark energy supposes that new energy "pops into existence" in the form of vacuum energy as the universe expands. There is reasonably strong evidence for vacuum energy. The point is not that it is proved, but rather that scientists do not rule it out. Pro's belief that everything has a cause is not ruled out. Pro rebuts that space and time must exist for quantum fluctuation to occur. That space and time must exist first is Pro's contention, it is not to my knowledge a scientific contention that is part of quantum fluctuation. If it is, then Pro should provide a reference that it is part of the theory. The theory of vacuum energy http://en.wikipedia.org... clearly does not require that space and time exist. It specifically requires that they do not exist outside of the defined universe. The theory claims that as the universe expands, the new space that is created has energy in it. The energy is detected by is gravitational field that acts to make the universe expand at an increasing rate. Pro carves an exception to his beliefs of nothing being infinite and everything having a cause. Pro believes that God is the exception. My question was then, if God is an exception, why cannot there be other exceptions? In particular, if the universe were an exception it would be a better theory, because the universe is much simpler than God. The universe is only energy and relatively few physical laws. God has infinite inexplicable powers. All of the arguments for God being an exception, such that it is the nature of God or the definition of God to be an exception, can equally well be applied to the universe. We can say that it is the nature of the universe to be an exception. Pro asks, "At the very start of this argument you listed out many alternative beliefs. How come these people can have their beliefs and I cant. Nothing exists forever. Do you not agree that the universe is not infinite or that time can have no meaning in something that has always existed. Im sure you share my beliefs,but if you dont can you prove me wrong?" You are entitled to your beliefs and they are entitled to theirs. The issue is whether you can prove the resolution of the debate. You may have many other beliefs, I don't care. The debate is solely about the resolution. Personally, I have no firm belief as to whether the universe is infinite or whether time began or whether things can pop into existence. I suspect that the answers lie in some broader understanding that invalidates the questions, perhaps a multi-dimensional theory like membrane theory, but I don't know. I like the answer the Buddha gave when someone insisted upon being told whether or not God existed. It was along the lines of, "If you have been shot by a poisoned arrow, would you refuse to remove it until you know who shot it?" In other words, it's best to get on with meeting the challenges of life and not worry about how the universe was made. It really isn't important. Pro says, "Yeah you could probably say that the universe has always existed. But then Id probably have to go back to [worshiping] suns gods and all whatever in the universe has existed forever. And I dont think God would live in his [masterpiece]." It is not necessary to worship anything. If Pro wishes to worship something, that is his choice. It is not even clear why God would want to be worshiped. Benjamin Franklin was troubled by that question for most of his life. But that's a different debate topic. Pro says, "Do you see how beautifully everything works in the universe. A lot of planning went into this. And how do you know that the big bang isnt Gods beautiful way of painting?." I do see how beautifully everything works in the universe. I don't know it was a result of planning. It is possible that the Big Bang was God's work; that is one alternative. In Round 1, I cited the quantum fluctuation theory which provides "According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence." The idea is that we only get to see one of an infinite number of universes, and the fact that we see it means that it is suited for our seeing it. Compare it to dealing out a hand of bridge. The probability of any hand be dealt is so small it would not occur in a trillion trillion lifetimes of perpetual card dealing. Yet the cards are delivered and we look at them, despite the infinitesimal odds. Perhaps there are creatures in a different universe pondering why their universe was so well suited to them. "Pro violated conduct and the conditions of site use." Pro: "Dont be a baby." Hate to tell you, but spelling and grammar count as well. Cruel universe here.