It is most likely that God exists.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I will waive going first. My opponent will put forward the first arguments in round 1
0.) Burden and Definitions.
Burden of proof
Even with a charitable Definitions the default position is that God may exist, but may not. That God likely exists requires evidence to move away from this default position - thus my opponent carries the full burden of proof.
Definitions
God: by God, let’s presume we are talking a generic God, not specifically tied to any one religion. This God is typically described as Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, personal (he has a mind and will), and is interested in human affairs. He is the ultimate creative force, and transcendental to all that exists.
Tests
I’m going to offer two helpful tests to weight pros evidence in advance. This is not the sole method to weight pros arguments - but is a useful test.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster test. The FSM is a fictional deity. If pro offers evidence that could be used to show the FSM is real too, this evidence should be rejected : if it shows a fictional entity could exist, the evidence cannot distinguish real from fictional.
The Loch Ness Monster Test. The Loch Ness Monster is also a mythical creature. If the nature of evidence of God is similar to the nature of the LNM, then this is strongly indicative that They’re both mythical.
1.) Lack of direct evidence to support the existence of God.
Despite the advancements of science, the ability to study both the earth or the universe, there is no direct evidence of the existence of God.
We can not measure Gods direct physical impact on the world, there has not been any proposed or measured mechanism by which God can interact with the universe, and God has never been objectively observed by anyone in a way that can be verified.
It would be expected that as a species we have progressed from primitive hunter gatherers to be able to land on the moon, and replicate the conditions of the early universe - that we would have been able to produce more substantial direct evidence of the existence of God in this time.
However, we have no more direct observational evidence of God than we did at a time before the Egyptians built the pyramids.
This is similar in nature to the evidence for the LNM. And thus decreases the probability of Gods existence.
2.) Indirect evidence for God is better explained by more mundane explanations.
Multiple examples of indirect evidence for God is often cited. In most, of not all cases these examples all boil down to simple or mundane explanations that do not require the invocation of a omnipotent deity to explain.
The motions of the planets and stars, the existence of the earth, and even the origin of intelligent life itself have previously only been explainable by - and some still believe - through the invocation of six a diety.[1][2]
These formerly insurmountable issues are now explainable through much simpler - and directly observable processes. [3][4]
Even many miracles, such as weeping statues, or many Biblical miracles have much more plausible and mundane explanations - even if they happened at all.
When winds pick up and part the sea in Lake Erie, we don’t call it a miracle, we call it “wind set down”[5]. When it rains frogs, we have documented explanations[6]. Weeping statutes can be easily replicated, and normally DNA tests reveal the true source when they weep blood.[7]
As a result there are few, if any, clear examples of even indirect evidence of God.
This is similar in nature to the evidence for the LNM, so lowers the probability of Gods existence.
3.) The Evolution of Gods over time
Humans have an amazing imagination, and have invented vivid and amazing myths, mythology, stories over the ages.
Given that we have invented the concepts of a simulated universe, dragons, magic, superpowers, and all manner of other bizarre and reaxfictional concepts, it is reasonable to conclude that such a species could potentially invent the idea of a super-being.[8]
Secondly, due to our intelligence, humans also find discomfort in the unknown, and not knowing. Invoking such a superbeing renders psychological comfort to the people who believe it.[9]
These two things together produce the possibility that humans invented the concept of God.
This is supported by the existence of invented religions, and stories we have seen emerge in recent years such as
Scientology and various cults.[10]
In history, we see evolution of religions over time. Shamanism, Animism, Christianity spawning from Judaism, and itself splintering into sub groups, and Islam splintering in the same way. Judaism itself sharing many themes with Zoroastrianism - which is even older.[11][12]
Given these religions are all mutually exclusive and can’t all be true, it definitively shows that humans have the ability - and propensity - to invent Gods, modify them, tweak them and embellish them.
Given also that adherents to these religions all have personal experiences of their God - it also shows that the human brain can manufacture personal experience of a God that doesn’t exist.
Given all of these things, almost all Gods that are worshipped is known about today must necessarily have been invented by humans.
The explanation that best fits the facts is that the concept of God - from Druidism’s Mother Earth - Ra, Zeus, and Yahweh, and all the Gods in between are simply human stories that were borrowed, adjusted and continued to this day in a variety of forms.
This is strongly indicative that the concept and idea God as we know and have been introduced to is simply a fictional entity.
4.) Unnecessary as a hypothesis.
One main argument used to justify the existence of a God, is as a metaphysical explanation of the origin of the universe.
In this regard it is a complex and unnecessary explanation.
For example, a multi-verse that existed out of time could theoretically explain all aspects of existence just as well as the existence of a God[13] - without the introduction of more unsolvable metaphysical problems : such as why does God exists instead of nothing, how can a mind not be caused, how can a mind exist without any physical form?
Given that God in this way is a more complex solution than others, this generally renders it a less likely solution than others.
Any solution that has only one implicit undemonstrable assumptions is more
likely than a solution that has 10; this premise is also referred to as Occams Razor. [14]
Conclusion.
My argument here is made of 4 prongs. No direct evidence; no indirect evidence; unnecessary to solve any specific problems; and likely made up.
All these points together show that it is unlikely that God exists - and thus negates the resolution.
Sources:
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/04/08/398227737/what-the-god-of-the-gaps-teaches-us-about-science
[2] https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/
[3] https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-observed-a-planet-forming-for-the-first-time-ever
[4] https://www.learnreligions.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896
[5]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11383620
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_of_animals
[7] https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/this-statue-is-weeping-and-they-found-something-awkward-when-they-tested-the-tears/
[8]https://www.signalhorizon.com/single-post/2018/01/17/5-Amazing-Tips-For-Writing-Weird-Fiction-From-HP-Lovecraft-Himself
[9]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618516300469
[10] https://m.ranker.com/list/active-cults/mike-rothschild
[11]https://www.bu.edu/arion/archive/volume-18/colin_wells_how_did_god_get-started/
[12] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/13/abrahamic-religion-zoroastrian-judaism
[13]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
[14] http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
P2: the universe began to exist.
C: the universe has a cause.
P2: the cause of the universe was the first cause.
P3: the first cause can have no cause before it.
C: the first cause is primordial.
P2: an infinite regression of temporal events necessitates an infinite past
C: an infinite regression of events cannot exist.
As Solomon Fefferman put it: “Science can dispense with the notion of the practical infinite without impairment.” Because it can’t exist in a practical sense.
- Expanding models that run into the problem of singularity theorems.
- Asymptotically static models that run into the problem of metastability
- And endlessly expanding and contracting models that run into the problem of acausal fine tuning.
- There is absolutely no evidence for the multiverse.
- Multiverse requires a multiverse generator or a “mother universe” that itself would require explanation
- The multiverse generator violates the laws of quantum mechanics by permanently severing information content from the mother universe.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe
1.) The Kalam cosmological Argument.
The KCA, and my opponents use of it, relies upon two fatal fallacies and two core problems.
1.1.) Fallacy of composition.
The fallacy of composition is where one assumes that something that is true of part of system applies to the whole.[1]
While our observed causality states that if something exists, it has a cause (the very first P1) to apply this to everything in, or out of the universe at every possible plane of existence is an unsupported assertion. thus the conclusion of the KCA is not logically valid.
1.2.) Fallacy of an undistributed middle.
Assuming we ignore 1.1, This fallacy is a fairly simple formal fallacy[2]:
All Z is B
All Y is B
Therefore, all Y is Z
The KCA as expressed by my opponent an be summarized as two parts: whatever the root cause of the universe is; it must be uncaused, and must itself be sufficient to account for the existence of our universe.
God (Z) is both uncaused and sufficient (B), and the cause of the universe (Y) is uncaused and sufficient (B).
It is a fallacy to state that Y = Z. As the common term is not distributed, so the syllogism the KCA relies upon is invalid and can be rejected.
Or, to explain it without appeal to formality: while the root cause must be sufficient and uncaused; nothing in the KCA requires the root cause to:
A.) Have a mind, will and personality
B.) Be omni-benevolent or omnipotent
C.) To have interest in human affairs.
As a result, even the KCA as formulated is completely insufficient to justify pros conclusion of God.
1.3) Fails the Flying Spaghetti Monster Test.
Pro misses the point of the FSM test. The point is if the argument can be used to justify the existence of something that is obviously doesn’t exist - it is obviously not valid.
In this case, the FSM is a multidimensional diety, which is made of transcendental spaghetti - it is not made of matter, or real spaghetti (spaghetti and meatballs are inspired by divine visions of him)
The KCA can be used to argue the FSM exists in this case: and therefore should be rejected.
1.4.) The multiverse can be uncaused and sufficient and thus satisfies the KCA.
The multiverse is a solution to the KCA that doesn’t invoke God - formulations exist outside of time (time exists within our universe only), thus may not have begun to exist so do not need a cause. My opponent offers a set of generalized objections to the multiverse.
A.) No evidence
The KCA requires there to be an uncaused sufficient root cause of the universe. Pro claims this is evidence of God.
When it is pointed out that the Multiverse meets the same criteria of the KCA - pro demands additional evidence.
This is an absurd double standard: pro posits that God exists as the universe requires an uncaused cause - but demands that I present additional separate evidence if I am to justify that a multiverse is likewise sufficient to explain the universe.
Pro implicitly concedes here that the KCA is not evidence of what caused the universe, as pro recognizes a solution that satisfies the KCA is insufficient without supplementary evidence.
Worse, it is also untrue. While there is no definitive evidence that the multiverse exists - there is anecdotal evidence that it exists in the form of various observations of the CMBR.[3]
This is more direct observational evidence than exists for God.
B.) Requires a parent universe.
Pro does not offer any justification as to why a higher dimensional, timeless multiverse requires a cause - such a multiverse would not have “begun to exist” - just as God exempts itself.
This also smacks of special pleading[4]: pro is asserting that a non-God hypothesis requires a cause - something he exempts God from.
C.) Violates Quantum information:
This again fits the fallacy of composition. But also isn’t justified. Why does pro believe that any conceivable multiverse must conform externally to quantum laws of information?
This is also special pleading: Why is God exempt from this problem?
D.) Cannot cause a universe at a finite time.
Pro suggests that only a Personal God can cause the universe to exist at a finite time in the past.
In his posited universe, it is possible for there to be a higher dimensional existence that is timeless which, through motivation, creates a universe in which time now exists and which has a definite beginning in time.
In the multiverse, there is a higher dimensional existence that is timeless, which through laws of physics creates a universe in which time now exists and has a definite beginning in time.
Pro offers no reason or argument that the latter is impossible - the difference is solely the nature of the cause of the universe. This too appears to be special pleading: pro unilaterally exempting God, but citing the issue as prohibitive for any non-God solution
2.) Fine tuning.
While God is an explanation of “fine tuning”, it could only be considered evidence of God only if there no equally plausible explanations why the universe existed as it does.
A broken egg in the street is not evidence that a seagull laid an egg in midair, as there are other explanations that explain the evidence equally well.
A key point is that the universe can only be considered fine tuned if:
- key physical parameters are able to vary and are not themselves specifically determined by a deeper law.[5]
- That there is such a sufficiently small number of universes to have ever existed that is implausible to have struck on the current values by chance.[5]
Unless it can be plausibly shown that either of these are untrue or true - then one cannot claim either way that the universe is fine tuned.
As pro has not sourced or justified the claim made by Roger Penrose - or explained how the man derived the above two facts, I have no real argument to refute.
As pro cannot show these assumptions true or false, it does not constitute compelling evidence to support God.
Secondly, with the definition of God given in round 1: even if the universe is fine tuned - there is no necessity for that fine tuning to be performed by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being with an interest in human affairs.
For example, the universe itself may be a simulation in a universe where our laws of causality do not apply: the creator may simply be a programmer, with no interest in us, is not all powerful and isn’t omnibenevloent. This would not match the definition of God as stated, but is equally plausible. Fine tuning fails in this regard too.
But it gets worse.
Thirdly, the universe doesn’t actually appear fine tuned: if it was fine tuned, you would expect the universal constants to be optimal for life. This doesn’t appear to be true: as a smaller cosmological constant would facilitate better star and galaxy formation which is more conducive to life : [6]
We also know that excluding approximately 1/5th of the surface of our planet, and excluding the extreme north and south poles, high altitudes, etc: any location you can pick on any planet from here until at least Alpha Centauri - a span of quintillion’s of square miles - would kill a human almost instantly.
Life will be eventually be destroyed by the expansion of our sun, the planet we live on requires previous stars to have exploded and appears to have been simply a matter of luck to have been formed in the region of our star that is suitable for life.
To say that a universe that appears so obviously hostile to life is “fine tuned” is absurd. One could postulate any number of hypothetical universes more conducive to life that operated with completely different rules that would be considered more conducive to life than our current one.
As a result the assertion of fine tuning is really unsupported cherry picking.
3.) No direct evidence of God.
Pro confuses direct evidence with an inductive argument.
God has not been measured, he has not been observed, and direct measurable data in his direct or indirect influence on the world has not been observed.
As a result, this point stands. Given that we have detected information about the beginning of the universe, the idea that we have not seen any direct evidence of Gods existence makes it less likely for such a being to exist.
As a result - God fails the loch ness Monster Test, there is no direct evidence for either
4.) Better explanations
Pro appears to concede that we don’t need Divine intervention from a God to explain the existence of earth, miracles, or the existence of humans of life. Indeed, pro doesn’t offer any evidence that any aspect of our lives is dependent on God in any way other than simply setting the universe in motion.
While Pro claims this is not a “God of the Gaps” argument: this is actually untrue.
Science does not have a cohesive and demonstrable explanation of why the universe as a whole exists, or why the parameters of the universe are what they are. The areas in which pro presents arguments are wholly unknown to science.
Pros two arguments rely on this gap in scientific understanding: asserting that the only way of explaining apparent fine tuning is God - or the only possible cause is God.
By very definition this is a God of the Gaps argument; though a subtle one.
Scientific discovery may indeed reveal the cause of the universe, and the cause of apparent fine tuning: at which point pros entire argument would evaporate.
Given that every single invocation of God to explain some unknown facet of the universe - of which Pro presents two examples - has failed to be a valid explanation once more knowledge has been revealed; there is no compelling reason to be the two cases pro states are any different at all.
5.) Evolution of Gods
Pro misunderstands the argument, and essentially conceded the point.
Given that the Gods that have been invoked by mankind are mostly mutually exclusive - they can’t all exist. This necessarily means that most must not exist and are fictitious.
If almost all Gods are fictitious, then there is no compelling reason to believe they aren’t all fictitious. Pro mistakes which part was necessarily true.
Pro offers no compelling reason to believe that the concept of God isn’t made up by humans; but simply claims it doesn’t matter.
It does very much matter. If every example of something was invented by humans as a work of fiction - there is strong reason to doubt its existence.
Unicorns may exist, the matrix may exist, the Star Wars universe may exist - but knowing that they are works of fiction makes that idea less likely plausible and inherently unlikely that humans “just so happened” to invent a fictional super being, and turned out to be correct.
This clearly refutes the resolution - especially given the issues with his arguments outlined in (1) and (2).
6.) God is unnecessary.
Pro points to apparent fine tuning, and the need for an uncaused cause to explain the universe.
As I showed above - the Multiverse would necessarily provide just as logically sound an explanation of those as does God. With just as much - if not more - evidence to support it.
The issue here, is that pro is faced with two options that explain the universe. An uncaused multiverse that conforms to some laws of physics, or an uncaused God.
For a God to exist - one must assume that it is possible for a mind to exist without any cause and without a brain to generate it. One must assume it is possible for an all powerful personal being to exist without itself being caused, that agency and motivation can exist without being caused.
The issue is not that these things are impossible - but that they must be assumed without justification or warrant. The multiverse has fewer of these implicit assumptions, so by the law of parsimony - is inherently more likely.
Pro drops this point, and I extend it across the board.
7.) Conclusion.
I have shown that the the KCA is unsound, and the fine tuning argument is based on an unfounded assumption.
Pro has failed to show any evidence of any kind that the cause in the KCA, or the fine tuned is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, personal and is interested in human affairs as covered by definition of God.
I have shown that the multiverse can explain the existence of the universe and fine tuning as well as God does; and satisfies the KCA.
Given that the Laws of Parsons make the multiverse more likely; that Pro is effectively making the same argument that has repeatedly failed in other cases; and as pro concedes that the very concept of God could have been made up by humans - this clearly demonstrates that the existence of God is unlikely and thus negates the resolution.
Sources:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
[5] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.5396.pdf
[6] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/422444/evidence-emerges-that-laws-of-physics-are-not-fine-tuned-for-life/
1.) Fine Tuning.
1.1.) Roger Penrose
Pro doesn’t justify this number, or provide an argument: it can be dismissed as an argument from authority.
What is the possible range of entropy values that are possible, can you justify that this range is supported by data? What is the possible range of initial entropy conditions that would allow life to exist? How many repetitions of these initial conditions occurred? Without knowing those two - fine tuning is just an assertion.
1.2.) The universe is not fine tuned.
Pro argues that as the universe is optimal for life - it must have been created. By this measure I demonstrated the universe is not fine tuned. Pro doesn’t contest any of the facts I presented - and thus it must be assumed true that the universe is not fine tuned for life. Strike 1
Pros attempts to address the failure by what I can only describe as torpedoing his own argument.
Pro goes from arguing an objective and specific criteria (fine tuned for the existence of life) that can be analyzed and assessed for validity - to now arguing that the universe really is fine tuned, but he is not able to specify the thing it is fine tuned for; justify why that criteria is indicative of a supreme being, nor justify or analyze whether the universe actually fine tuned for that criteria or not. Strike 2
IE: pro hides behind some nebulousc subjective undemonstrable tuning criteria, he can’t show what that is, whether the universe is fine tuned to it at all, nor explain why that fine tuning can only be explained by God.
This modified fine tuning can be discounted as utterly subjective and completely undefined and not proof of anything at all.
1.3.) What is the cause of fine tuning: the Burden of Proof
As I explained, and pro doesn’t really address - the whole reason the multiverse has been posited is to explain apparent fine tuning.
If a multiverse existed in which there existed multiple child universes with different properties - the ones with the properties conducive to life would develop life and appear fine tuned.
The multiverse is a perfect counter explanation to God to account for fine tuning.
In this debate - pro happily asserts that fine tuning is due to God without separately proving God is real - yet if I provide an example with equal evidence, pro demands that I separately provide a theory of everything to explain it.
Pro is unfairly shifting the burden of proof to me with this double standard, and attempting to assert God is the default position despite having no objective reason to argue God is more likely.
Strike 3: “Fine tuning”, whatever that means - is not evidence for God.
1.4.) God of the Gaps.
Despite my opponents denials, the fine tuning arguments is very much a God of the Gaps argument. He even helpfully explains what the gap is:
“Burden of proof is on you for the unified theory of everything”
Pro hides this behind probability “it can’t be due to chance”, we don’t know why they are the way they are: that’s the Gap pro obviously is filling with God.
2.) The KCA
Pro claims the KCA is deductive and is based on logically certain premises. This is completely untrue.
2.1) Fallacy of Composition
Pros defends of this fallacy by repeating it: asserting that our locally understood rules of causality must apply to the entire universe at all levels. His justifications were that it has to, and that if it didn’t then our local causality would not be as it is.
Not only are these not really a rebuttal - but also factually untrue. The observational universal violates our laws of logic and causality repeatedly.
Positions of particles[1], emission of radiation, [2] and enumerable other events in the quantum world are purely probabilistic . There is no singular classical physical triggering event that causes an atom to decay, or an electron to be in one location: if the specific conditions are correct, then the events happen without precipitating cause.
We know also that particles can indeed come nothing without a preceding direct cause[3], that objects can be in two places in once[4], and can cross impassable barriers[5]. A particle on one side of the universe can be entangled with a particle on the other, changing one state instantly changes the state of the other[6]
The laws of causality pro requires to be true - are already demonstrably violated repeatedly every day! Why does pro insist in claiming that causality as we observe it is valid when this underpinning assumption is refuted by observation.
Premise 1 is invalid. Strike 1
2.2) Fallacy of undistributed middle.
The KCA does not logically show the cause must be personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or have an interest in human affairs. Pro must show all 4 to demonstrate God, and even if we grant his rebuttal - he has failed to show the remaining 3 properties. Even with his rebuttal - pro still falls 3 properties short of the necessary properties to prove God.
Pro argues that the universe would be infinitely old or never exit if the universe was not personal.
The main issue with this a personal entity doesn’t even solve the very problem that pro claims necessitates a personal God.
If God is eternal - he has had an infinite time in the past to decide to create this universe - the universe too should be infinitely old. The problem is identical to the one pro asserts for a non personal cause!
Pros argument doesn’t show that the cause of the universe must be personal - pro is showing that the universe can’t extend infinitely into the past.
Pro even goes onto agree that “multiverse could create a universe at a finite time”.
If the cause of the universe does not exist within time as we know it, or is finite in time but unbounded (like a sphere has no end but has finite size) the the problem pro asserts demands a personal God evaporates.
If a cause of the universe was both sufficient, and uncaused - it could satisfy the KCA by not being infinite in time, or existing outside of it - without being personal.
The KCA thus clearly still suffers from this crippling fallacy. Strike 2.
2.3.) The multiverse solution fulfills the KCA
The KCA argues that there must be an uncaused first cause that is sufficient to produce our universe, and given pros objections, this uncaused sufficient cause either exists outside of time, or is finite but unbounded.
A multiverse with those properties satisfies BOTH the fine tuning argument - And the KCA.
It does so without having a mind, without needing to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, OR to have any interest in human affairs.
It’s therefore it meets all the evidence pro provides, but has fewer implicit assumptions than God.
Strike 3: The KCA is not evidence of God.
3.) The multiverse explained.
From the first two points, it’s clear that pro has no evidence to show God exists: we have a disproven premise in (1), and a faulty premise in (2).
The point of talking about the multiverse isn’t to reference a specific model - but to propose a metaphysical solution as to why anything exists - using fewer metaphysical assumptions.
In this case, a multiverse is a larger dimensional “space” that doesn’t itself require a cause, and from the laws of which our universe originated. It either doesn’t exist in time, or is finite but unbounded.
This relies on the same metaphysical assumptions that pro’s position does: that is possible for something to violate our laws of causality, that it is possible for something to create the universe, and it is possible for something to exist outside of time.
3.1.) It fulfills the KCA BETTER
Despite pros protestations - as it is a primordial first cause, that isn’t caused.
It solves it better than God as it doesn’t additionally require lots of additional properties like personality, omnipotence, etc.
Strike 1
3.2.) It solves fine tuning BETTER than God
As shown, it solves the fine tuning problem AND also better explains why it the universe is pretty hostile to life : the universe simply has properties that allows life to exist, rather than being specifically tuned for it.
Strike 2
3.3.) It is more parsimonious.
Thus far, the multiverse solves the problem but requires fewer assumptions.
The assumptions listed above are the same as pro makes for God.
However, pro also has to assume it is metaphysically possible for an entity with a will to simply exist without cause; that will can exist without a mind, that good and evil can exist at a universal scale out side humanity, that the force of this uncaused entity in question is all powerful.
Despite pros dismissals : the assumptions of the multiverse are demonstrably fewer than that of God.
Strike 3
3.4.) Double Standards - Unsupported objections.
Using Pros own deductive arguments - I have shown that the multiverse is a better solution than is God.
In the last two round, pro has demanded I show evidence that the multiverse exists, demands proof of a theory of everything to show that God is unlikely to be the fine tuner.
Pro now implies that I must provide complex solution to show the multiverse is physically possible.
He explains I must provide an explanation of how a multiverse solves an issue he asserts - but doesn’t explain - with quantum information. He explains I must provide an explanation for dark matter too.
In neither of these cases does pro provide any justification or detail - and offers no evidence.
Pro also asserts - without any justification - that the multiverse requires a parent universe. This is just nonsense and is completely unsupported; no model I have seen requires there to be a larger parent universe of something greater.
What pro is doing here, is offering a metaphysical argument for God, based on no direct evidence, and with absolutely no justification as to how any of the physical laws work, whether they are possible, and whether God could even exists physically. Then objecting to an alternative that is simpler, and fits the data better due to all those reasons.
Pro is clearly invoking a double standard, engaging in special pleading by asserting problems exist in the multiverse that don’t for God - then continues to demand separate quantifiable evidence for opposing ideas, while claiming two shoddy deductive proofs are more than enough for him.
It’s important, however, to make sure pro understands the burden of proof he has, and the resolution.
I do not have to show that the multiverse exists, or even that it likely exists - only that it is as, or more likely than God. I have clearly done that.
4.) Mop Up issue Pot Pouri.
The following is a collection of issues not addressed above.
4.1.) Simulation
This example highlights pros special pleading.
Pro claims that there exists a superbeing that created the universe and needs no explanation, and doesn’t require a cause.
When presented with a possibility - that we are a simulation created by an individual that exists in a universe which doesn’t operate by the same rules: pro cries foul and claims that universe must require a cause and requires an explanation.
Pro does not own the exclusive rights to the metaphysical assumptions he makes - he cannot object when those same assumptions are used to show a non-God option.
4.2.) The FSM Test.
The FSM is absurd, and does not exist. That is the point.
The FSM test is applied to show whether your argument could be used to prove a fictional, absurd, invented deity that isn’t real - is real.
If your arguments can be used to show the fictional FSM exists - it shows they don’t themselves constitute evidence.
Fine tuning, and the KCA both fail this test.
4.3.) Pros concession on the KCA
Pro conceded the KCA cannot be used as evidence for God, but demanding that a solution to the KCA that isn’t God requires additional evidence.
The KCA requires either supplementary reasoning or it doesn’t.
If it does - then it is not in itself evidence of God. If it doesn’t - then it is also evidence for the Multiverse.
4.4.) Evidence for the Multiverse
As stated - there is no direct or indirect evidence for God - only deductive arguments that are based on faulty premises, and assumptions.
While there is no unambiguous or clear evidence for a multiverse, the potential observation of the CMBR offers some potential evidence of it.
This was offered to show there is more evidence that a Multiverse exists that God.
4.5.) Evolution of Gods.
Pro doesn’t really contest any of the facts here.
Humans have invented the names of Gods, what those Gods want, the narrative of Gods existence, cause of the universe, afterlives, etc.
We can see cultures appropriating aspects of other people’s religion, who then invent additional layers.
Given humanity has necessarily invented so much about so many Gods; given humans fear of the unknown, and our propensity for imagination; the explanation that beat fits the facts is:
Humans in the dim past invented the concept of God as an explanation of why things are as they are, a fictional interpretation that was later overturned by science. This notion was borrowed, copied, enhanced from primitive animism and sun worship - all the way to modern theism.
Apparent fine tuning is an extension of that - a comfortable explanation of why we are here, and the KCA is simply a post-hoc rationalization.
This explanation best fits the facts. It explains why a cold unforgiving universe is so hostile, while our existence from primordial atoms at the Big Bang appears simply a matter of physics. Why there are so many disparate religions, and explains why there is no direct evidence of God, no evidence of their interaction, and why pro must rely on shoddy deductive reasoning to try and justify Gods existence.
This is clearly more realistic and plausible than Pros position.
Conclusion
The conclusion here is simple.
Strike 1: The universe isn’t actually fine tuned as shown, and as torpedoed by pro.
Strike 2: The KCA is clearly invalid and doesn’t support pros position.
Strike 3: other explanations make fewer metaphysical assumptions than does God.
Pro must show God is likely, and the evidence he provides has been refuted. I have also shown - categorically that other solutions are more likely.
Sources:
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/radioactive_decay.htm
[2] https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-doesnt-the-electron-have-a-definite-position.333699/
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
[4] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a18756/atoms-exist-two-places-simultaneously/
[5] https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_uncertainty.html
[6] https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_uncertainty.html
If a multiverse existed in which there existed multiple child universes with different properties - the ones with the properties conducive to life would develop life and appear fine tuned.
yet if I provide an example with equal evidence, pro demands that I separately provide a theory of everything to explain it.
If God is eternal - he has had an infinite time
If the cause of the universe does not exist within time as we know it, or is finite in time but unbounded (like a sphere has no end but has finite size) the the problem pro asserts demands a personal God evaporates.
If a cause of the universe was both sufficient, and uncaused - it could satisfy the KCA by not being infinite in time, or existing outside of it - without being personal.
The point of talking about the multiverse isn’t to reference a specific model - but to propose a metaphysical solution as to why anything exists - using fewer metaphysical assumptions.
The assumptions listed above are the same as pro makes for God.
Using Pros own deductive arguments - I have shown that the multiverse is a better solution than is God.
Pro now implies that I must provide complex solution to show the multiverse is physically possible.
He explains I must provide an explanation of how a multiverse solves an issue he asserts - but doesn’t explain - with quantum information. He explains I must provide an explanation for dark matter too.
I do not have to show that the multiverse exists, or even that it likely exists - only that it is as, or more likely than God. I have clearly done that.
Pro claims that there exists a superbeing that created the universe and needs no explanation, and doesn’t require a cause.When presented with a possibility - that we are a simulation created by an individual that exists in a universe which doesn’t operate by the same rules: pro cries foul and claims that universe must require a cause and requires an explanation.
4.2.) The FSM Test.The FSM is absurd, and does not exist. That is the point.The FSM test is applied to show whether your argument could be used to prove a fictional, absurd, invented deity that isn’t real - is real.If your arguments can be used to show the fictional FSM exists - it shows they don’t themselves constitute evidence.
Pro conceded the KCA cannot be used as evidence for God,
The KCA requires either supplementary reasoning or it doesn’t.
4.5.) Evolution of Gods.Pro doesn’t really contest any of the facts here.
Pro must show God is likely, and the evidence he provides has been refuted. I have also shown - categorically that other solutions are more likely.
Again, pro is mostly dancing around the key issues with his argument.
1.1.) Penrose Calculation.
Pro has not explained what the calculation is, what assumptions it makes, and why it is valid to conclude these assumptions. The only reason pro has given for why this should be believed - is that it came from an expert. This is a text book appeal to authority - despite pros objections.[1]
Pro gives no actual details to refute after 3 rounds.
1.2.) The universe is not fine tuned
To show the universe is fine tuned in a way that supports God, pro must:
(A) Provide an objective tuning criteria.
The only criteria pro uses is “Fine Tuned for life”. This was demonstrated to be untrue.
To work around this glaring issue; pro speculated that maybe there were other tuning factors that he didn’t outline, hasn’t justified, and can’t demonstrate.
This is how pro torpedoed his own argument: he changes the tuning criteria to work around a problem, and in so doing pulls the rug out from his argument: he can’t claim the universe is fine tuned if he is unable to specify what exactly it is tuned for!
Strike 1. Pros only response is to deny this is what he did. I extend this argument.
(B) Show the universe is optimal for this criteria.
I pointed out that the universe is hostile to life, that the parameters are not optimal; and one could envisage multiple universes that are more conducive to life. This premise is clearly invalid.
These are clear and obvious examples of a poorly tuned universe. This decimates the core premise of fine tuning.
Strike 2
Pro initially ignored these, then accepts them as true when changing his tuning criteria (see A), now rejects them again.
What more does pro want? I sourced my claims that the universal parameters are not optimally tuned. If pro doesn’t believe that the universe is mostly uninhabitable due to the void of space, radiation[2], lack of oxygen, etc; that’s so obvious it should be a truism.[3]
Does pro not think there are better universes that would be possible for a designer to create for life? One where planets were almost all inhabitable? That it was possible to breath in space?
If God exists there is an infinite set of possible universes that he could have created - of which this would be the best possible version. Pro offers no objective justification of how this universe could be the considered the best possible version of anything - he only assertions that it must be.
Given Pro has no argument for why the universe seems so poorly tuned for life - other than refuting the premise for his own argument: I extend this argument too.
(C) Show that it is implausible that physical explanations can account for the tuning.
As mentioned in the last few rounds, to conclude fine tuning, pro is forced to assume that these properties of the universe can take on multiple different values, that they are not linked somehow by underlying laws of physics, that other forms of life are not possible with other combinations of physical properties, that the universe isn’t cyclic, or that there is not more than one universe.
If any one of those things aren’t true - then the premise upon which pro bases his fine tuning argument, is invalid - and thus the conclusion doesn’t follow.
There is no possible way pro can justify the validity of these assumptions - to do so requires information on the underlying laws of physics no human hash
Pro has simply been repeating the assertion that the universe is here due to insurmountable odds: despite having no factual or evidential basis to ground this on.
This destroys the key premise of the Fine tuning argument.
Strike 3
What pro has done - is assert these assumptions as if they’re fact. Pro has demanded that I prove the unified theory of everything to prove these assumptions wrong.
While pro objects - he had the burden to prove the premises his conclusions depend upon. I extend this whole argument too.
1.3.) Yes - fine tuning is a GOTG argument
Pro simply repeats that his argument isn’t a god of the gaps argument.
Science is currently unable to explain why the parameters of the universe are the way they are. This is the gap.
Pro asserts that the only possible explanation for this unknown is God. This is the God of the Gap
Pro objects to this because his argument is based on evidence. Pro is using the evidence to highlight that there is a gap - not to justify explicitly why he can sat God fills it - God only fills this gap in the absence of any other explanation. Yhis justification is based on unjustified and unsupported assertions (see c).[4]
2.) The KCA
To show the KCA, pro must show that the KCA supports
2.1.) Fallacy of Composition.
Pro asserts that what applies to the rules of our universe for us must apply to every plane of existence in any form. This is the fallacy of composition.[5]
Just because rules apply one way for us does not mean the rules apply to all planes of existence.
In his reply in the previous round, pro simply restated this objection by claiming that if something could occur without cause, we would see it today (this is the reverse of the fallacy).
Whilst objecting to me pointing this out: pro restates this fallacy for a full third time.
What is true of all planes of existence may not be the same as what is true for us. Or universe may be subject to different laws of causality than our parent plane of existence. Asserting that it must so is inherently the fallacy of composition, whether pro likes it or not.
Strike 1
2.2.) Violation of causality and logic.
In the previous round, I gave multiple documented examples of quantum behaviour that violate the laws of causality, the laws of logic and inherently refute pros assertions of composition.
(A) Multiple examples violate causality.
Pro concedes things can happen without any precipitating and event or mechanical cause.
As this is not what we observe in our day to say lives and our notion of causality - this demonstrates that the universe works in different ways at different levels.
Even pros adamant redefinition of the word cause belies the fact that even the idea of cause and effect in quantum’s theory is strange and ill defined[6]
This completely refutes pros assertion that how the universe works to us, must be how it works at all other levels AND calls into question the whole notion of cause and effect in generalz
(B) Violates the laws of logic.
Pro doesn’t contest the facts presented, just how they apply.
Pro asserts the KCA, and notions of causality must obey the laws of logic and our notions of what is feasible.
These examples of quantum superposition, tunneling, etc completely refute this notion, and refute pros claims of composition. As it is clear that the universe operates in different ways at different levels.
(C) But we’re right THIS time...
The KCA is only valid if it’s premises are valid. The primary premise is that causality operates the way pro asserts it does.
Humans concepts of causality have already been fundamentally upended once in the last 100 years, and once in this debate: to the point where pro is forced to change the definition of cause to extend to things that happen spontaneously without any preceding action.
Given that pro must redefine what a cause is, that humans notions of logic and causality have been wholly upended and invalidated, and the universe operates by absurd and non-intuitive laws that do not obey any semblance of how we think the universe should works[6]: the notion that we should pros assertions that he is correct about causality - is absurd.
2.3.) Fallacy of the undistributed middle.
The KCA requires an uncaused first cause that is sufficient to produce a universe. Nothing more.
Pro injects the following undistributed terms:
Omnipresence; again nothing about the KCA necessitates omnipresence. There is no necessity for the cause to have any relationship with the universe other than created. Pro is simply asserting this without any justificationx
Omnipotent; Nothing in the KCA implies omnipotence. Pro claims the fine tuning argument shows the designer is omnipotent. Pro just referenced the KCA to defend failures of the FTA, and now uses the FTA to defend failures of the KCA. This is blatantly circular reasoning
This is also not correct. If fine tuning was valid, the cause needs only the required ability to modify constants at the starting point of the universe. There is no necessity that the case to be able to interact or effect with the universe after that, to be able to alter the laws themselves, or be able to effect any changes other than outside the limited capacity of tweaking the laws.
Pro is seeking to manufacture omnipotence out of limited requirements.
Interested in human affairs: pro drops this.
Is a personal entity with will: Pro replies with the same faulty argument he presented in the last round.
If the cause of the universe is infinite in time, then there was infinite opportunity to being the universe into existence - it should have happened at some point in the infinite past.
This is not solved by giving the cause will as I showed, it is solved by making the cause either timeless or non finite: as Pro helpfully admits:
“God would not have had an infinite time to create the universe because time didn't exist yet. That's not how this works.”
“in an atemporal environment there still exists cause and effect. and if the conditions necessary to form the cause are not met then the effect never takes place. Time has nothing to do with it”
“No, because then the universe would exist from eternity past”
Pros argument has frankly come of the rails.
If the universe doesn’t exist within time, there is no problem to solve:
“[The cause m] would not have had an infinite time to create the universe because time didn't exist yet. That's not how this works.”
If the universe exists outside of time, the universe can only be 13.8bn years old, as this is the only amount of time that actually exists. As outside the universe is timeless, there is no before, and no infinite times
Simply holding the multiverse to the same standard as God - without will - solves the problem pro manufactures.
This is all shows pro is using the KCA to manufacturing God without warrant due to the fallacy of undistributed middle:
Strike 2
2.4.) The multiverse
Pro still doesn’t seem to understand this argument, and uses a combination of double standards and special pleading to object to it.
Lets reiterate :
I am using the multiverse as a metaphysical solution to the same premises pro is asserting as valid.
Pro is using the KCA to argue that there must be a sufficient uncaused cause, and using the FTA to show the need for something to explain why universal parameters are the way they are.
From the KCA - using pros own premises and assumptions - the cause must be uncaused, it must be finite in time, or timeless, it must be sufficient to cause the universe.
Pros argument does not infer ANYTHING more than that as I have shown s
I’m positing a non-personal, non-God cause that I am referring to as the Multiverse (given the multi part allows us to explain the fine tuning).
The cause I am inferring by definition must be sufficient, uncaused, timeless; and thorough containing multiple universes, addresses fine tuning.
Pro complains that I have not provided any scientific evidence for my metaphysical argument.
Pro has not provided scientific evidence for his metaphysical argument - making this an unfair double standard.
Worse, while not clear cut or demonstrative - I did indeed provided tentative scientific evidence : meaning that there is more direct observational evidence of the multiverse than of God.
Pro goes on to assert that my metaphysical explanation must necessarily be subjective to the laws of physics, to quantum information. Why must it?
On what grounds does pro conclude that ANY CONCEIVABLE non omnipotent, non omniscient, non personal cause of the universe must be subject to Quantum information, or the same laws of physics.
That’s a huge claim, for which pros only justification appears to be because it is.
The multiverse inferred by the KCA by very definition must be sufficient. This means it cannot be bound by laws of quantum information or the laws of physics as pro claims.
This is identical to the reasons pro exempts God. Pro cannot explain why God solves these problems, pro simply assumes it is possible for the cause of the universe to avoid this problem. I am simply making the same assumption.
Pro here, is basically exempting his God by making metaphysical assumptions - then claiming it is not valid for me to make these same exemptions based on the same assumptions.
This is blatant special pleading.
As shown: the multiverse satisfies the requirements of the KCA and FTA with the same metaphysical assumption - but additionally:
- inherently explains why the universe is hostile to life (it is not tuned, just has the properties that can give rise to observers)
- Doesn’t require it to be possible for a kind to exist without being caused
- Does not require it to be interested in human affairs
- Does not need to be omniscient
- Does not need to be Omnipotent
This explains the universe better than God, with fewer assumptions: therefore via The law of Parsimony, is more likely.
Strike 3
Pro launches a tirade at the end of his arguments - claiming that my arguments are unscientific, unproven - and that he is explaining everything and I am not.
As explained, and largely ignored: pro is mostly special pleading: he is making implicit assumptions and assertions about God, or about the Multiverse which he is not justifying, and then drawing conclusions from it in order to show God is required.
This is what he is not justifying - and I have detailed these issues.
Pro claims I am not proving my case.
Firstly - I don’t really need to: I just have to show my case is as likely as pros - refuting the resolution.
Secondly - I am using the same metaphysical assumptions he is to prove the multiverse.
Pros objection is that am not making the same unreasonable assertions about either God or the cause of universe.
Unlike pro - I am not placing assumed and unjustified limits on a non personal cause: such as demanding it be wholly subject to or constrained by limits of quantum theory, or the laws of physics - as opposed to being a level above them. I am not assuming that an uncaused cause must not be timeless, etc.
The issue is not that I’m not providing the same quality of proof as pro has done for God - but that I am not holding the case to constraints that pro arbitrarily asserts.
4.) Mop up and drops
4.1.) FSM Test
Pro still doesn’t seem to understand the FSM test. The FSM is absurd, but both the KCA and FTA can be used to justify the existence of the FSM.
The absurdity is the whole point. The FTA and KCA doesn’t require the cause to be interested in human affairs, or be all-powerful, etc, any more than it requires it to be made of spaghetti.
4.2.) KCA concession.
When I showed a multiverse met the criteria for the cause of the KCA - pro demanded evidence.
If additional evidence is required outside of the KCA, or justifications - pro concedes the KCA.
As pro now backtracks and drops his demand for additional evidence - and simply argues I just need to provide reasoning - I have done that.
It is laughable for pro to conclude that I have provided no additional reasoning, despite explicitly arguing that the universal cause can be satisfied with fewer assumptions than God.
If pro STILL demands additional evidence of the metaphysical multiverse, as he has done repeatedly, despite him not doing the same for God.
4.3.) Drops;
- Pro drops this entire positive case that Gods are invented
- Pro drops that we have more more direct observational evidence of God since than we did when the Pyramids were built.
- Pro drops that he has no observational or direct evidence of God.
- Pro drops my explanation that God is simply not necessary
- Pro drops the argument from parsimony.
I extend all these arguments across the board.
Conclusion.
I have shown that:
- Pro has criteria by which we can tell the universe is tuned.
- The universe doesn’t appear fine tuned for life
- The universe doesn’t appear to match the expectations of universe tuned by a divine creator.
IE: It cannot be considered “likely” that God is an answer to fine tuning.
- The KCA makes unfounded assumptions about the rules of causality matching our expectations.
- Rules of logic and causality are already violated, we can’t have confidence they are accurate.
- Pro cannot demonstrate the cause must be omnipotent for omniscient
- Pro cannot demonstrate the cause must have will - only that it is timeless.
- The multiverse fulfills the KCA at a metaphysical level without pros additional assumptions
IE: The KCA is built on demonstrably shaky ground, and commits key fallacies to show God exists, without these fallacies other explanations are more likely.
I have also shown:
- The multiverse fulfills the problems Pro raises with fewer assumptions
- That pros own metaphysical assumptions can be used to show the multiverse is possible.
- That all Gods are likely made up, and pro is likely simply rationalizing an existing belief - rather than demonstrating his position is true.
As a result - I have clearly refuted that God is likely.
Sources:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_habitable_zone
[3] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/complex-life-may-be-possible-only-10-all-galaxies
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
[6]https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20180328a/full/
What more does pro want? I sourced my claims that the universal parameters are not optimally tuned. If pro doesn’t believe that the universe is mostly uninhabitable due to the void of space, radiation[2], lack of oxygen, etc; that’s so obvious it should be a truism.[3]
Does pro not think there are better universes that would be possible for a designer to create for life? One where planets were almost all inhabitable? That it was possible to breath in space?If God exists there is an infinite set of possible universes that he could have created - of which this would be the best possible version. Pro offers no objective justification of how this universe could be the considered the best possible version of anything - he only assertions that it must be.
Given Pro has no argument for why the universe seems so poorly tuned for life - other than refuting the premise for his own argument: I extend this argument too.
As mentioned in the last few rounds, to conclude fine tuning, pro is forced to assume that these properties of the universe can take on multiple different values, that they are not linked somehow by underlying laws of physics, that other forms of life are not possible with other combinations of physical properties, that the universe isn’t cyclic, or that there is not more than one universe.
Pro has simply been repeating the assertion that the universe is here due to insurmountable odds: despite having no factual or evidential basis to ground this on.
Pro concedes things can happen without any precipitating and event or mechanical cause.
This completely refutes pros assertion that how the universe works to us, must be how it works at all other levels AND calls into question the whole notion of cause and effect in generalz
Pro doesn’t contest the facts presented, just how they apply.Pro asserts the KCA, and notions of causality must obey the laws of logic and our notions of what is feasible.These examples of quantum superposition, tunneling, etc completely refute this notion, and refute pros claims of composition. As it is clear that the universe operates in different ways at different levels.
Humans concepts of causality have already been fundamentally upended once in the last 100 years, and once in this debate: to the point where pro is forced to change the definition of cause to extend to things that happen spontaneously without any preceding action.
Given that pro must redefine what a cause is, that humans notions of logic and causality have been wholly upended and invalidated, and the universe operates by absurd and non-intuitive laws that do not obey any semblance of how we think the universe should works[6]: the notion that we should pros assertions that he is correct about causality - is absurd.
Omnipresence; again nothing about the KCA necessitates omnipresence. There is no necessity for the cause to have any relationship with the universe other than created. Pro is simply asserting this without any justificationx
Omnipotent; Nothing in the KCA implies omnipotence. Pro claims the fine tuning argument shows the designer is omnipotent. Pro just referenced the KCA to defend failures of the FTA, and now uses the FTA to defend failures of the KCA. This is blatantly circular reasoning
Interested in human affairs: pro drops this.
If the cause of the universe is infinite in time, then there was infinite opportunity to being the universe into existence - it should have happened at some point in the infinite past.
If the universe doesn’t exist within time, there is no problem to solve:
Pro has not provided scientific evidence for his metaphysical argument - making this an unfair double standard.
Worse, while not clear cut or demonstrative - I did indeed provided tentative scientific evidence : meaning that there is more direct observational evidence of the multiverse than of God.
Pro goes on to assert that my metaphysical explanation must necessarily be subjective to the laws of physics, to quantum information. Why must it?
On what grounds does pro conclude that ANY CONCEIVABLE non omnipotent, non omniscient, non personal cause of the universe must be subject to Quantum information, or the same laws of physics.
This is identical to the reasons pro exempts God. Pro cannot explain why God solves these problems, pro simply assumes it is possible for the cause of the universe to avoid this problem. I am simply making the same assumption.
Firstly - I don’t really need to: I just have to show my case is as likely as pros - refuting the resolution.
Pro still doesn’t seem to understand the FSM test. The FSM is absurd, but both the KCA and FTA can be used to justify the existence of the FSM.
Pro drops this entire positive case that Gods are invented Pro drops that we have more more direct observational evidence of God since than we did when the Pyramids were built. Pro drops that he has no observational or direct evidence of God. Pro drops my explanation that God is simply not necessary Pro drops the argument from parsimony.
I extend all my arguments. Note that this is a generalized summary and will not cover all possible points raised or dropped.
Pro has the full burden of proof to show that an omnipotent, omniscient, personal God with an interest in human affairs likely exists. This debate was offered in R1 and not contested until the final round so should be accepted as the requirements for the debate and pros burden.
1.) Cons Case for the unlikelihood of God.
I showed that the concept we know of God is simply made up by humans, that there is no direct or indirect measurable evidence for the existence of God, and that despite our advancement as a species, we still have no more observational evidence that God exists than we had when we were in caves.
I have explained that god has been repeatedly used an explanation of the unknown: and have continually failed when more information is presented. I have shown the KCA and FTA rely on invoking God to solve unknown areas of science in the same way.
One would expect at least some of the above not go be true if there was an omnipotent, omniscient superbeing who is interested in human affairs.
This demonstrates why God is unlikely.
Pro dropped almost this entire case. And due to pro dropping, I have fully established God is unlikely.
2.) Pros case - the KCA
The first premise of the KCA relies upon the impossible to justify assumption that causality for the entirety of all possible realities or planes of existence work the same way we we see.
Pro doesn’t justify this conclusion: and simply asserts because of the causality we see - that it is impossible for the laws of reality to be any different. This is by definition the fallacy of composition.
As I showed with examples, the laws of physics completely invalidate our own concepts of logic, causality and what is possible - or not. Even pros description of things that can be caused includes spontaneous events that are not triggered by any specific precursor event!
Given how alien the laws of physics are to our perception of causality, that our understanding of causality has completely changed in the last 100 years: Pros assumptions on causality cannot possibly be justified, leave along considered “likely”
Even if you accept the core premise pro asserts: the KCA points to a cause that has only 3 properties: uncaused, sufficient to produce the universe and timeless/non infinite.
This falls 4 properties short of necessitating God.
Pro didn’t justify why it is necessary for the cause to be able to interact with the entire universe after created, nor why the cause must be MORE powerful than simply sufficient, even if you include pros FTA explanation. So not omniscient or omnipotent.
Out of the main properties of God: pro only offered a detailed argument for will. I showed Pros confuses the need to have will, with the need to be exist outside of time. Pros rebuttal was a mess; asserting God exists out of time, that a non God cause cannot, and then that timelessness solves the problem for God, but not for a non-God cause. Pros argument was clearly nonsensical.
Because of this, pro is justifying that there is an uncaused, sufficient, and timeless cause of the universe - rather than a cause that is omnipotent, omniscient, has personal will, and interest in the affairs of humans.
Failure on any point constitutes failure to show God is likely. Pro failed in all of them
3.) Fine tuning
The evidence I presented shows the universe is hostile to life, it’s parameters are not optimal, and there are likely a near infinite number of other universes a God could create that could be better than this one if an all powerful God existed, rather than one that is only powerful enough to tweak parameters.
This shows the universe not tuned for life nor appears as one would expect if it was created by an all powerful deity. Pro has no counter argument other than to repeat the claim.
This in itself shows that God is unlikely.
The only evidence to support the notion that the universe is unlikely, is an asserted calculation from Roger Penrose, which despite asking multiple times - pro has not explained, justified or expanded upon.
I have pointed out that to assume the universe is fine tuned, one must make a number of unsupported assumptions about the universe and the laws of physics: these assumptions cannot possibly be known and their probability cannot be assessed because they rely on information no human has.
Pro has repeatedly failed to offer ANY argument to support his unsupportable assertion that our universe is somehow unlikely - thus the universe cannot be considered fine tuned; and therefore pro fails to establish that God is likely.
4.) The Multiverse
Pro uses the KCA and FTA to infer that the universe has a cause, and that cause is “God”
I have used the same arguments and the same underlying metaphysical assumptions to infer other metaphysical things that could equally satisfy these two arguments.
Pro uses the KCA and FTA to infer God and demands it be accepted with no additional evidence; when I use the KCA and FTA to infer a multiverse using the same logical arguments; pro demands additional evidence, asserts that this solution must be subject to our laws of physics, and must have specific physical problems that can’t possibly be solved. Pro claims that this argument is “ignoring science”. This is clearly an absurd double standard.
Pro doesn’t provide detail as what the specific issues are: asserting vague and generic problems exist, he doesn’t explain how these problems definitely affect this solution. Pro simply vehemently and repeatedly asserts that they do.
Pro doesn’t explain why God is exempt from ANY of these problems; pro simply asserts that God is exempt - with no other justification. This is obviously special pleading.
Pros demands that we assume God is the answer because I cannot provide a detailed and justified scientific explanation of how the universe originated without God. This is clearly an unreasonable god of the gaps argument that relies on an inability to show God is false, rather than pros ability to show God exists.
When holding God and the multiverse to the same standard of evidence and burden of assumptions: the multiverse is more likely.
As explained : A deeper plane of existence that is timeless, that is not subject to our laws of physics and exist above them, and allow multiple universes to exist would satisfy the fine tuning argument, the KCA and can potentially solves the scientific issues pro raised every bit as much as God.
It does so making the same underlying assumptions as does Pro - it does this without also assuming that if is metaphysically possible for omnipotence, omniscience, a non-physical mind to exist outside of regular dimensions.
Due to Occam’s razor and the law of parsimony; assuming the multiverse is the cause of our reality makes the same - but fewer implicit assumptions as Pro, and is thus inherently more likely across the board.
Married with God likely being invented; and pros arguments failing both the Loch Ness Monster, and Flying Spaghetti Monster tests - God is clearly not likely at all, and the resolution is negated.
Vote con.
See comments.
Gist:
Pro’s whole case could have called for Zeus or Ra having done it (names he brought into this debate), with equal certainty to one of the other thousands of fictional beings did it. Con cast strong doubt on any of them, chiefly by reminding us that none of pro’s models actually calls for any God to be involved, and even if they did there’s no reason it’s God instead of the FSM.
In the final round there’s a list of five major things pro dropped, but he concedes them as not mattering (this includes that God is fictional!).
A strong suggestion for arguing God is the cause of the universe, is to never leave God being created by us unchallenged. When that is unchallenged, there's no logical path remaining for God being an uncaused cause. When that's left in place, diet coke makes more sense (at least it can be verified to exist).
---RFD (1 of 9)---
Interpreting the resolution:
For pro to win, God must be implied to exist with some confidence (statistical or otherwise).
For con to win, God’s existence must be left within reasonable doubt.
Gist:
Pro’s whole case could have called for Zeus or Ra having done it (names he brought into this debate), with equal certainty to one of the other thousands of fictional beings did it. Con cast strong doubt on any of them, chiefly by reminding us that none of pro’s models actually calls for any God to be involved, and even if they did there’s no reason it’s God instead of the FSM.
In the final round there’s a list of five major things pro dropped, but he concedes them as not mattering (this includes that God is fictional!).
---RFD (2 of 9)---
Blunder:
I got barely started R2 before I noticed a massive tactical error from pro. Con gave a definition for God that would be wholly encapsulated by the FSM (all hail his noodly appendage); had con embraced that he would have flipped a good chunk of con’s own counter evidence to his favor. Instead by trying to argue against the validity of any being as likely as the FSM, he completely undermined his own case for any being of similar likelihood such as God.
0. Tests
Good start to the debate, two methods for validating evidence (as much as no one has been able to prove the FSM is fictional, nor even that Jesus Christ is not his son...). Pro’s argument against the FSM validity test was suspect, and based on false information which con quickly corrected (the nature of gods is never physical form; no one says ‘you called God HE, and men have penises, which are physical matter, so God cannot exist...’)
---RFD (3 of 9)---
1. Lack of evidence (No direct evidence)
Con counters the KCA via questioning the validity of composition AKA it’s not proven (which pro defends with repeating himself and making a diet coke straw-person), and more importantly that even if his premises were true the conclusions that one particular God did it was not even implied; to which pro left effectively unchallenged. The FSM test pro has a decent defense of “Adding superfluous details in order to make the argument seem stupid is not a real objection.” Granted con was not so much adding superfluous details as pointing them out; and pro decided to reject the FSM instead of using him as God (no evidence exists to say that’s not God’s true form).
---RFD (4 of 9)---
The teleological argument did not lead to any conclusion of God, merely attempted to imply we don’t know as much about our universe or the multiverse as we would like. To quote con on this point: “there is no necessity for that fine tuning to be performed by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being with an interest in human affairs.” Later this gets into how the universe is mostly hostile to life, which implies that it was not made by any smart creator (both debaters missed that this is proof of the FSM, as he was stupid and outright drunk when he made the universe... again, had pro just embraced the FSM he could have flipped all this evidence against his case to be in favor of it).
---RFD (5 of 9)---
Without proving God is somehow needed in any of his models, he insists “This constitutes direct evidence for a God.” He even doubles down on his lack of evidence being his evidence, insisting we need to just accept his appeal to authority without any (had the authority come with evidence rather than mere assertion, it would have been the non-fallacious form... the equation would not need to be typed into the debate, a quick link to where Penrose got his numbers would do a better job anyway). Note: this was a major place the writing of sources hurt an argument.
2. mundane explanations (no indirect evidence)
Pro does a two-line reply which does not really challenge this. I would call it dropped, but not outright conceded (I should look up the jargon, to ensure I’m using these terms correctly).
---RFD (6 of 9)---
3. God changes (likely made up)
Actually a good start, given thousands of false gods we imagined into being, why would a later one not stem from the same source? Pro majorly drops the ball here, conceding that con is right, but then insisting one random one of them he’s apparently met must have done it anyway (so much talk of probably, so if there’s ten-thousand false idols claiming to be God, what are the odds you’ve found the true one to which you are arguing in this debate? 0.01%). As con puts it “Unicorns may exist, the matrix may exist, the Star Wars universe may exist - but knowing that they are works of fiction makes that idea less likely plausible and inherently unlikely that humans ‘just so happened’ to invent a fictional super being, and turned out to be correct.” Pro tries to bring Zeus and others in, but nothing gets around the core problem of decreased likelihoods.
---RFD (7 of 9)---
4. Occams Razor (unnecessary to solve any specific problems)
On the multiverse, pro fully Leeroy Jenkined the composition fallacy con had already pointed out to him (why even make a pre-refuted argument?). It apparently violates the local laws we know, so can’t exist! *lol*
Neatly pro argues that minds randomly float around in space and before time, and it would be the composition fallacy to say they can’t be there (more credit would go to him here had he named it); but makes a rather obvious false attribution of BoP to the person not claiming the seeming impossible.
5. Mop up and drops
Seriously, I’m going to steal this for future debates, putting it in one round before the end. Pro ends up intentionally dropping (at this point I’d call that a concession) the entire bullet list.
---
---RFD (8 of 9)---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points.
Sources: tied
Pro, next time I suggest using the advice at: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Due to effort I am leaving this tied... However, either make links in arguments and/or number your sources.
In case it’s not been explained before: Books are not the type of sources judges here care about, we look for what we can easy verify on websites (an example being links to scientific papers, which so long as there’s a summary we can read we trust it without needing to pay to access them).
S&G: con
Pro intentionally wasted the time of the voters by claiming R1 or R2 contained the list of (as he outright quoted) "Objections so horrendously bad I couldn't have made them up"; which it did not, rendering his reply both incoherent and incomprehensible, while self-accusing his own prior arguments of being just that for not containing what he specified they contained.
---RFD (9 of 9)---
Similarly, while his sources themselves were fine, the connections to his arguments were left incoherent by the poor method of their display. Pro, this kind of mistake can cause accidental plagiarism, so please take my advice as seen in the sources section.
Speaking of numbers, even if headings change, maintaining the numbers on them would have made arguments less painful to track down when trying to follow the thread of each through the 30,000 character rounds.
Conduct: tied
Con was better (particularly that final round nicety), but I am putting the major offense here into the S&G category as pro is new, so may have never been told before what quotations mean in written debates.
I'm about a quarter of the way through this monstrosity... I have a social life to get to, so I'll analyze some more arguments tomorrow or the next day.
A lot of misinformation about his divine noodliness. To minimize confusion, I suggest watching this quick primer: https://vimeo.com/31543194
Thanks for the debate; I genuinely enjoyed that, and appreciate that you stayed all the way to the end!
daaang, I took me like 30 seconds to scroll through that
Is it any more or less valid an assumption than the alternative of assuming that it’s possible for something to exist without being measured.
The debate is about likelihood: this specific argument decreases the possible number of Gods that could exist - that inherently decreases probability.
Or put another way, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The absence of evidence for X proves, at best, two things and two things only: (1) you have no evidence for X, or (2) you just don't see the evidence. It doesn't prove that X exists, nor does it prove that X doesn't exist.
Food for thought - what if people are just unable to "see" the evidence that is before them? Maybe the evidence is "there", but folks are unable to see it or recognize it as such?
Here's an analogy. Not a strawman, mind you, but an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine two guys are out in the forest. One guy, let's call him Natty Bumppo, is a seasoned hunter.....he's been tracking animals all his life. He knows the forest in and out. Another guy, let's call him Duncan Heyward, has never set foot in a forest and doesn't know the first thing about hunting or tracking animals, etc.
Now suppose these guys are walking through the forest. Natty says to Duncan "Someone else has been walking in this forest." Duncan on the other hand says "You're crazy, no one has been here." Natty replies "Dude, the evidence is right there....there! don't you see it?!?" (he is able to see the signs of another human, such as bent twigs, etc). Duncan on the other hand says "Nope. I don't see it. I dont' see it at all."
Humans for whatever reason (inability, immaturity, obstinance) may just not be able to see or recognize the evidence that is presented before us.
1.) Lack of direct evidence to support the existence of God.
DOesn't this assume, though, that the entity (you can call it "God") is subject to the scientific method?
No
If I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that make me the Anti-Pasta?