It is likely that a God or gods exist

TinyURL The source my opponent has used to support that “TinyURL should not be used” is an *unofficial* users guide. Majority of debaters use TinyURL when their links hinder character limitations, thus I shall continue using the same as it is not against any rule. Observations Ob1: My opponent has chosen to defend a deistic creator God and not a non-creative deity, thus I have to argue against a creator deity and *not* a non-creative deity such as Poseidon or Athena. My opponent seems to unfairly ask me to disprove both a non-creative deity and a creator God while Pro need defend only *one*. This is unfair and harsh, and I shall need to disprove only the one which Pro has chosen, in this case a creator. C1) An External Cause Is Impossible My opponent has *completely* misunderstood this argument. I did not say that the universe existed forever, I said that the universe began to exist *without* a cause. I am not implying an eternal universe. I am implying that the universe could not have been created, thus a *creator* is not compatible with this. CIA. Causality Is Impossible This argument is *dropped*. Causality is incoherent without time, and God cannot defy logic and the laws of nature. Logic is necessary for objectivity, and if God can “cause” something *without* time, then his existence is incoherent, thus impossible. [1] CIB. Quantum Superposition God is transcendent to the universe. For a being to be transcendent and outside the universe, while being able to *create* everything with it, he must be all-observing (not omniscient). Observation collapses quantum superposition, thus God is impossible. “God does not have to obey the laws of physics.” This must be demonstrated. *How* can God not obey the laws of nature? This is a bare assertion that has to be proven, and commits the bare assertion fallacy, which states that if a statement is *assumed* to be true, with no evidence, then it is logically fallacious. [2] CIC. Argument against Atemporal Minds For a being to be intelligent, its mind has to have a process, e.g. the ability to *think* or perceive. Since these are processes, they have to be temporal, thus an intelligent God requires time and cannot have existed prior to the universe. [3] As for Athena, it is answered by Observation 1. C2) Causality Is Not Required My opponent seems to confuse the zero-energy genesis theory with vacuum fluctuations. A vacuum fluctuation was used by me to show that particles can be created without a cause. But here, it is the vacuum *genesis* theory, which is *dropped*, that is relevant. Under a vacuum genesis hypothesis, which has been virtually proven by the homogeneity of the universe, and the isotropic spread of the Cosmic Microwave Background, energy begins to exist without a cause, as there is no net energy. [4-6] My opponent alleges that such explanations “failed to outlive the 1980s due to theoretical problems …” In fact, the zero-energy universe hypothesis is the most widely accepted idea for both (a) the level of energy in the universe and (b) the origin of the universe. [7] The vacuum genesis argument is dropped, thus I extend it to this round. C3) Law of Parsimony The Law of Parsimony will apply if I am able to refute all my opponent’s arguments. I will let it stand here. R1) Cosmological Argument Since my opponent has completely dropped my vacuum genesis argument, instead mistaking it for a vacuum *fluctuation* argument, my refutation of P1 still stands. My opponent seems to confuse that I am for an eternal universe; I am for a universe that began to exist without cause, which has been defended by the zero-energy genesis argument. [8-9] “[T]he positive energy of matter can be balanced by negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes.” [12] R2) Fine-Tuning Argument The vacuum genesis argument has absolutely nothing to do with my refutation of the teleological argument. First, as mentioned, everything follows the laws of nature unless *proven* otherwise. [10-11] The second law of thermodynamics *majorly* increases the mathematical probability of the “fine-tuning” of the universe being created out of a combination of gravitational physical necessity [12], and randomness. [13] R3) Religious Experience I will address this in a more detailed manner. RIIIA. Abductive Inference When appealing to which explanation is more likely via. abductive reasoning, these criteria are generally ubiquitous regardless of what philosophy or field of study (including science) is undertaken. [14-15] 1. Has good explanatory power. 2. Is simple (Law of Parsimony). 3. Invokes minimal ad hoc explanations. 4. Is in line with background knowledge. 5. Makes testable statements. Using an abductive inference to best explanation, I will demonstrate how metaphysical naturalism offers a much better explanation to religious experience than the existence of God. Except #1, metaphysical naturalism offers much better explanations to all the criteria; #1 is probably a tie between naturalism and deism. #2. The naturalistic explanation to religious experiences pose that these experiences are entirely within the mind, which has one assumption: that it is purely psychological. The theistic explanation is that a deity (assumption 1) interacts with the mind (assumption 2). The theistic explanation has more assumptions, thus naturalism fulfills Occam’s Razor here. #3. There is an *enormous* diversity in religious experiences, but the naturalistic explanation explains this by saying there is an enormous diversity in already inherent beliefs, while all varied theistic explanations defend one kind of God and can only account for this with ad hoc explanations. While theistic explanations can account for this, it severely weakens the statements with ad hoc explanations. #4. Metaphysical naturalism roots its very basis with background knowledge, viz. a scientific explanation for the universe not involving God. Background scientific knowledge generally dictates the likely non-existence of God via. quantum superposition, etc. My opponent claims (without proof) that God is ‘beyond’ the laws of nature, but this means God is not in line with background knowledge, thus the theistic explanation for religious experience is inherently not in line with background scientific and philosophical knowledge. #5. Metaphysical naturalism holds that existing physical laws are responsible for everything that happens within the mind, including religious experience. One of the theories for religious experiences are the contact with psilocybin, a naturally-occurring compound produced by more than 2,000 species of mushrooms. “Under supportive conditions, 20 and 30 mg/70 kg psilocybin occasioned mystical-type experiences having persisting positive effects on attitudes, mood, and behavior.” [16] In the 1980s, Dr. Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist, stimulated the temporal lobes of human subjects with a weak magnetic field; the subjects reported an ‘ethereal religious experience.’ [17-18] A new neuroimaging study with PET scans suggest *physical* stimuli in the brain, specifically in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, superior parietal lobe, and caudate nucleus. [19-20] There have been no studies that show in any way that God’s existence fueled these religious experiences, thus the naturalistic explanation makes more testable statements. #1. For the ‘explanatory power’ argument, I will present a reductio ad absurdum argument to counter religious experience. Recently, there have been ‘scary’ sightings of *fairies*, thus there have actually been experiences of fairies. [21] Does this imply that fairies are real and triggered the sightings? That would be an absurd conclusion, thus an experience is not definite. Thus, metaphysical naturalism has equal, if not greater, explanatory power in explaining religious experience. Thus, the religious experience argument is refuted. Conclusion I have demonstrated a naturalistic origin of the universe is possible, causality is not required for the universe to begin to exist, causality of the universe is impossible, that God must obey physical laws unless *proven* otherwise, and have refuted all my opponent’s arguments. Furthermore, the Law of Parsimony applies as I have refuted *all* arguments presented by my opponent. The resolution is resoundingly negated. Sources 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. Stephen W. Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 123. 10. Ibid. pp. 163-165. 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. Stephen W. Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. p. 180. 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com... 16. http://tinyurl.com... 17. http://tinyurl.com... 18. http://tinyurl.com... 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com...