Science Implies God's Existance

Framework It seems there is some confusion with the framework. I never agreed to have a debate without philosophy whatsoever, just with science implying atheism. I even explained why it’s impossible to have a debate with pure science and no philosophy in the debate referenced by Pro. The area that deals with God’s existence is called the philosophy of religion [1]. It’s simply impossible for this debate to have no philosophy. It’s not unfair to use science to demonstrate a philosophy that prohibits God’s existence. This agrees with the parameters of the debate. My arguments do look to the observable world and extrapolates on what that would entail. The observable world entails the universe never began and that it might not have came into existence. Any argument I made was justified heavily with science. Unless Pro wants to object to the principle of explaining why God’s definition entails something. However, Pro’s arguments would then be devoid of any basis. Since they still assume God wished to create life, had the power, knew how, ect. Furthermore, Pro’s arguments also deal with philosophy. The FTA must argue that the universe wasn’t tuned by necessity, which is philosophical. Pro is arguing that science entails the philosophy of theism, whereas I am arguing science entails the philosophy of eternalism which entails atheism. Neither of these violate any parameter or rule of the debate, since implies doesn’t necessitate the use of pure science. Time Pro’s attack is that mainly eternalism is philosophical and therefore he doesn’t have to respond. Eternalism may be a philosophy, that doesn’t entail it’s not scientific. In fact, it’s rephrased as a principle in relativity [2]. It therefore, cannot be said to be outside the realm of science. He argues “since eternalism is a philosophy, I cannot falsify it”, but this is completely false. Science may have shown that there is absolute time and all other reference frames are invalid. In which presentism would be true. Cosmology Pro presents two responses for this. God might not have created the universe and a singularity is merely theoretical. Pro’s first responses commits the fallacy of equivocation and a strawman. I never stated that guaranteed meant a modal necessity. Pro refutes the first premise with a modal definition of “guaranteed” however, we’re already assuming God did create the universe (definition from round 1). So why would I argue from modality? This appears to be why Pro thinks the argument is mainly philosophical, but it’s obvious that stems from a misunderstanding. Next, Pro claims a singularity isn’t proven to exist by observation. It should be noted that Pro gives no citation for this claim, it is an assertion. Anyway, I already demonstrated a singularity exists by the laws of general relativity. General relativity has been shown to be correct by observation time and time again [3]. If GR is true, then so is the said singularity [4]. Just because a singularity hasn’t been directly observed doesn’t mean it’s not science. Science is defined as: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Note my emphasis. A singularity follows from the observations of GR, it is a structure of the natural world that has been demonstrated through observation. It doesn’t entail direct observation is necessary. After all, if it was then Pro would have to believe the study of Pluto's orbit around the sun isn’t scientific. Since we know it takes 248 years to go around the sun by the laws of gravity [5], not via. direct observation because Pluto was discovered in 1930 [6]. We can state we know this by observation because the laws of gravity are demonstrated by observation. I also think it’s ironic that Pro uses this, since a majority of his examples of fine tuning (the argument itself too) are theoretical and not directly observed. We’ve never observed a different universe that possesses different values. All calculations must be theoretical based from observation, not by direct observation. Same goes for examples like, the expansion rate of the universe. We cannot practically fly to around the universe observing expansion directly, but we know what the expansion rate is by other means such as red shifting [7]. On the other hand, Pro might mean that a singularity hasn’t been proven because physics isn’t complete. Although I already answered this in my opening statement. Conclusion Pro is trying to use the framework of the debate to evade my arguments. The only content that wasn’t related to this was arguing that God might not have created the universe, which misunderstands the argument. Modal reasoning is irrelevant to the argument. The other was claiming that a singularity is theoretical, although theoretical is still scientific and doesn’t mean it’s not demonstrated to exist. It seems Pro misunderstands my arguments, the framework of the debate, and the nature of science itself. To Pro, for the finial. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.pitt.edu... [3] http://www.nasa.gov... [4] Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. p. 99. [5] http://www.universetoday.com... [6] http://www.history.com... [7] http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...