Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

A. "Creators not only use a time-based process consisting of one event after another, they also necessarily precede their creations" I am afraid CON could not be more wrong here. He is referring to a classical understanding of cause and effect relations within physics called "principle of locality", where an event at one point cannot cause a simultaneous result at another point. Here is an article referring to it: https://en.wikipedia.org... However, you cannot apply our understanding of classical physics at the very first moment of the big bang because Einsteins equations breakdown at the big bang and , thus, it requires a quantum mechanical description to apply it at that point in time. Secondly, quantum entanglement experiments have demonstrated the existence of simulataneous cause and effect relation, which I have already pointing out in round 2. This is why I specifically stated the law of causality as , "every material effect must have an adequate antecedent OR simultaneous cause", in order to encompass our present understandings of both classical and quantum causal relations. Therefore, the best way to describe the first moment of the big bang is to say that the same moment in which the universe first came into being was the same moment it was caused or created by an immaterial spaceless timeless cause. This leads me to the next objection CON has raised.B. "There are 3 problems with this.1. Minds are contingent on brains; the mind is a construct that represents the inner workings of the brain.2. Since minds are contingent on the brain, and the brain is made of particles/material, they are not immaterial.3. Being that minds are contingent on the material, existent-in-time-and-space brain, the mind is not outside of spacetime." Let me clarify my interpretation of the evidence I presented in round 2. I am assuming property dualism NOT substance dualism. This means that I would agree with just about everything CON suggested here. The only exception to this is his contention that the mind has absolutely no causal power and, thus, does not operate in a different dimension. The evidence that the mind has at least some causal power is self-evidently experienced by every person in the world. For example, our ability to form intentional states about something, such as what is happening in this debate as we speak. More importantly, our ability to apply phyiscal manifestations of digital information or abstract objects ,not contingent upon nature, into the material world. My hypothesis only needs these two conditions to be true. Therefore, the burden of proof would be on CON for him to suggest that every thing was simply created by the brain. Right now, present experiments, at best, either show a strong correlation between brain and mental events (i.e. MRI scans) or merely disprove substance dualism, such as brain damage. However, Correlation does not prove causation and property dualism avoids objections that only apply to substance dualism because property dualism accepts that the mind emerged and is causally connected to the brain.C. "Pro never provided any reason to accept another time dimension" This is simply not true. I provided a source to everyone in Round 2 regarding a model of the universe that merges both classical and quantum models, which describe a universe with 4 space plus 2 time dimensions. This model yields predictions that have already been confirmed by scientists and, thus, provides evidence for the existence of a second space-time dimension.I have also provided a source that shows how the mind operates under a second space time dimension within the field of neuroscience. CON responded to this by arguing that because my source does not specifically label it a "second space-time dimension or interval" in which humans are operating under, then the source is not referring to my conclusions or interpreations of the evidence. I feel CON is playing with semantics here in order to win the debate because he does not explain at all as to why the author was referring to something different than what my label and its definition is suggesting. Nevertheless, I will present a paragraph from the source that clearly does refer to my label and its definition: "Is time one thing? An open question is whether subjective time is a unitary phenomenon, or instead whether it is underpinned by separate neural mechanisms that usually work in concert but can be dissociated under the right circumstances. In other words, when one temporal judgment changes,do the others necessarily follow suit? We give three examples that indicate the answer is ‘No’." [emphasis added]The three examples he is referring to are experiments that I based my definition on in regards to the description of a second space-time dimension. I encourage voters to check for themselves.D. "Pro cannot say that their personal creator god maintained their values from the beginning. The only value shown to be maintained is the spatial variability of the fine-structure constant, no other variability, and no other constants." In regards to the usage of my sources in this debate, this is the only careless mistake I made. He is , for the most part, correct here. I have another source that would provide support for this claim, but since its in a book, it most likely has not been peer-reviewed and I can't read the exact contents of it without buying the book. Nevertheless, I am starting to realize now that referencing this empirical finding was not needed to support my hypothesis because its already well accepted that the fine-tuning constants came into being almost the same moment the universe came into being, which I was trying to establish. This leads me to another objection CON made regarding the fine-tuned constants.E. "Pro asserts that the values were chosen, but in no way attempts to explain how this is the case beyond his assertion.Pro has given no reason to think that the right values could only occur if they were chosen that way." Again, CON continues to miss the arguments I established already in round 2, but I will elaborate. The reason why I suggested that the values were chosen is because they essentially came into being the same moment the universe came into being and ,thus, had to be created by the same causal entity. Secondly, we know through math that most of the values in the parameters will not allow life to exist if these values were smaller or larger. This means that we don't need to know what values don't allow life, just the relevant values of the constants that do produce a life permitting universe. In round 2, I showed how the cosmological constant was a great example of why the right values could only have occurred if they were chosen that way by the entity in question.F. "Birdsong (birds' language) is linguistically very similar to human language phonologically and syntactically, but that doesn't mean that human intelligence is being used to organize bird sounds in a particular order" CON is confusing analog information (syntax) with digital information (semantics). Just because there is a close relationship between digital and analog information does not necessarily mean that physico-chemical laws of nature produce digital information. This is because the forces of chemical necessity (analog information) produce redundant order or rule-generated repetition that reduces the capacity to convey specified information [7]. For instance, random mixtures of polymers or granite are examples of complex structures generated, but they are not specified. Crystals are typically understood as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules held together in a uniform way. However, neither crystals nor polymer mixtures qualify as living organisms because they do not possess both information forms simultaneously found in DNA, leading to “specified complexity”[8]. Crick (1958), who was one of the first to elucidate the information properties of the DNA molecule, explained this meaning of information in biological terms in 1958 as “the speci@257;cation of the amino acid sequence in protein. ... the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein.” [9] Shortly thereafter, leading molecular biologists de@257;ned biological information to incorporate this notion of speci@257;city of function and complexity [10]. G. "Pro clearly admits here that his omnibenevolent creator not only has created an evil in viruses, but that this evil is necessary"Remember, the subject matter of this debate is not philosophy or theology but science. In round 3, I provided a scientific definition of what I mean by an "evil design", which involves designs that ONLY bring harm and degeneration upon that organism or to other organisms. The examples I provided that were considered to be evil actually yielded an important function that benefitted popluations of organisms. Thus, I fail to see how CON refuted my hypothesis.H. "Why can't an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god create this beautiful universe without evil, innocent death, necessary evils, or necessary population control via harmful evil viruses?"I answered this already. Read the last part of Round 3 again.In the next round, I will finish off any leftover objections from CON and provide my debate conclusions. [7] Polanyi M. Life’s irreducible structure. Science 1968; 160:1308–1312. 320 [8] Orgel L. The Origins of Life. 1980. p. 189. 321 [9] Crick J. “On Protein Synthesis,” Symposium for the Society of Experimental Biology 1958; 12, 138–63 322 [10] Sarkar S. Biological information: a skeptical look at some central dogmas of molecular biology. In: S. Sarkar, 323 ed.: The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives. 1996. p. 187–231. Dordrecht: Kluwer 324 Academic Publishers.