Resolved - God exists

The first thing I want to start with is the BOP. The BOP in this case is on Pro to prove that "God Exists". This is an affirmative statement and it is on him to back up this claim. He cannot show that God may exist, that it is probable God exists, or that there is a possibility God may exist. He must actually show that God exists. This is his BOP, and you can note by his first round that he is no where near fulfilling it. I will start out with some contentions, and offer rebuttals in this round and latter rounds. R1) Experience does not necessitate truth. Pro's first claim is that experience can entail truth. This is a fallacy in the highest regard, because he is saying if someone experiences something that it is real. Thing about states of mind, or when people are on drugs, or people that are just generally insane. When its dark outside and people often get scared, they can correlate sounds and events and propose paranormal activity exists. When people are mentally unstable they will often see people and things that are not really there. When on certain types of drugs, you can actually begin to hallucinate and see stuff that is not within reality. The point being is that there are countless types of ways people can experience something and what they are experiencing is actually false or not real. It may be real to them, but it does not objectively exist. It only exists in their mind and because they allowed it to exist to them. For something to objectively exist, it would exist outside of someones mind. It would exist whether they believe it or not. R2) Empirical TruthsPro is claiming our minds, and experience are the only way to gain knowledge which in a way is true. I would almost direct you to a debate between whiteflame and ajab for this as it is a good read and is entirely relevant to this debate [1]. While sense are our primary means of leaning and understanding, just because we experience an act does not mean it is necessarily an objective truth. It also means that it may be a necessary truth as well. There are certain laws that govern life that we have learned through using science, rational, reason, mathematics, and our senses. But these laws exist even if someone does not want them to exist. The same is not true of God. Take how we understand gravity. Without someone altering the foundation of it or a drastic change, if we take a pen and drop it. It will almost certainly always fall to the ground. There are ways this changes but only if it manipulated ie we are in space, or certain people change certain fields of it. In general without someone altering the variables, gravity will always operate the same. Anyone reading this can grab a pen and drop it and it will fall. This is an objective truth in regards to gravity. Now if someone drops that pen and it falls, and they believe it floated for any given reason. That truth may be true to them, but it is not objectively true. The pen still fell to the ground and that is the result of an iron glad empirical fact. The reason i'm stating this is to address pros claim that someones experience necessitates empirical fact, because that is a false claim. Empirical laws and facts do exist, but because someone experiences something does not necessitate what they experience as an empirical fact. Because someone "experiences God", that does not necessitate the fact that God exists, no more than someone who saw that pen fall and believed it did not fall necessitates that the pen did not fall. Just because they experience something does not mean it actually is real , did not happen, or actually happened. For something to be empirical it has to be empirical in all senses. So any argument Pro brings up about him or others "experiencing God", we can discard because it is entirely faulty and relies on non verifiable evidence. R3) Breaking down faulty syllogismsThere are a variety of syllogisms pro uses to try and solidify his argument that are just wrong. I'm going to briefly address this because most of his case was not even a case, but I would like to show why his logic is wrong. He uses this as a way to state that logical deductions can entail truth, but is wrong when he trying to push that logical deductions necessitate truth. Just because something could or should happen does not mean it will happen. Look at the one below(p1) If Larry is sick, then he will be absent.This is assuming if he will actually be absent. He could come to school sick(p2)If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork.Again an assumption that someone will not bring him his classwork and he will not be able to do it(c) Therefore, if Larry is sick, then he will miss his classworkThe p1 or p2 arrive from a logical deduction that may or may not be true, and both have to be true to come to this conclusion. That does not necessitate the conclusion as true because for it to be true both p1 and p2 would have to be true via a priori. IT would have be occur in the way pro states and have no other way of occurring. I was going to touch the God syllogism because that is faulty as well, but there is no reason to at this point. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ContentionsC1) Possibility and probability are not enoughThis is just redirecting the judges back to the BOP. I really have to do nothing this entire debate (I still will but the BOP is on him). He cannot simply show that through experience or certain means that there is a possibility that God exists, he has to show that God exists empirically and is verifiable which he has failed to do. He tried to use experience as a way to justify God and as I have stated above, this is entirely false. He needs to show that God exits even outside of peoples experience. Look at it this way, if we removed humanity God will still have to exist objectively in order to fulfill the BOP. He has not shown that God is an empirical fact. C2) No need for a GodOne of the biggest arguments for Christians is that God created the universe but even that is false now. Through science we can now see that the universe could create itself. Most people would try to assert that energy cannot be created or destroyed or that you need a God in order to explain how the universe began. This is false so now let's review whyTo arrive at the fact energy cannot "pop" into existence, we have to address what is nothing and if there is energy out there that we cannot see or know about. We have to address what is observable and what is not observable and the types of nothing. All laws came into existence at the time of the big bang, so anything prior to that is not observable. In addition most people lack the understanding of what something from nothing means. It is essentially saying confinement, causes a lack of stability and 1 can become 1+ 1. I will address this below. The first thing we must look at in regards to the universe creating itself is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ." The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time. " [2] The statement itself is not questioning the accuracy of measuring instruments but stating that there will will always be uncertainty in nature. The next thing we need to address is confinement energy [3]. This is basically when you try to contain a particle into a smaller volume. " If you compare the confinement energy for an electron in an atom to the energy required to hold it in a nucleus, you find that you can't hold an electron in a nucleus. "[3][4] So basically when you try to think about trying to trap a particle into a smaller particle, the system is unstable. Via einsteins equation E= MC2, if you put enough energy into any given system it can produce particle-antiparticle pears. What that is basically asserting is that particle-antiparticle pairs can actually be created from "nothing" at least in some regards. "So particle-antiparticle pairs can be created from "nothing", that is from no particles to two particles, but energy must be provided, so these particles can be viewed as having been created from the energy. And that required energy is not "nothing", so a vacuum that produced particles would nevertheless require available energy to convert into the particles."[4][5]Now touching on the fact that the entire universe can be created from nothing. Note : Quantum Realm - [5]Note : Quantum Mechanics - Operating below the scale of atoms [6]The basic stance is that gravitational potential energy is 0, and as the universe expands it becomes less negative. With the case of our universe being flat or nearly perfectly flat, due to gravitational potential energy becoming negative upon expansion , with our universe being flat it will approach 0 flat. This would eventually cause confinement, and due to the lack of stablity meaning the 1 to 1+1 point would arise , and something could essentially come from nothing. Nothing again meaning 1 to 1+ 1ConclusionPro has not met his BOP and has shown that God empirically exists. I have refuted his case and showed why there is no need for a God[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.aip.org...[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://plato.stanford.edu...