Instigator / Pro
Points: 3

It is most likely that God exists.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Ramshutu
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
I will waive going first. My opponent will put forward the first arguments in round 1
Round 1
Published:
waived, per my description.
Published:
Thanks to my opponent for this debate.

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

Round 2
Published:

Constructive

The flying spaghetti monster test/the cosmological argument.

Before I get started I want to address some of my opponents frameworks. First is the FSM test. The FSM test is an absurdity and in the end, is self-defeating. I’ll unpack this by explaining the Cosmological argument which goes thusly:

P1: everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: the universe began to exist.
C: the universe has a cause.

P1: the statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause is uncontroversial in both science and philosophy. Everything that is brought into being must be predated by something with the causal power to bring it into existence.

P2: the statement that the universe began to exist is an uncontroversial statement amongst cosmologists. We know that the universe did have a beginning roughly 13.8 Billion years ago.

C: since the universe began to exist, and all things that begin to exist have a cause, it logically follows that the universe has a cause.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


P1: the past is finite.
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.


P1: we now know that time is not an abstract concept invented by the human mind, but rather along with space is an actual property of the universe called space-time and thus was brought into being with the universe. Since the universe is finite it follows that the past is finite.

P2: since we know that time was brought into being with the universe, the event that brought time into being would be the first in temporal sequence.

P3: this is relatively self-explanatory. The first cause, by virtue of being the first, can have no cause before it. Thus, the first cause is uncaused.

C: since the first cause was uncaused it follows that it has always existed and was never brought into being. It also follows that since the first cause brought all space, matter, and time into existence that the first cause does not occupy space, exist within time, nor does it have a physical form.

Now you see the problem. An FSM would do all of those things. Spaghetti is made of matter. And thus has a physical form. All known spaghetti exists within time and space. Thus a flying spaghetti monster would be disqualified from being the uncaused cause and thus disqualified from being God. Any appeal to the FSM test should be disregarded.

As I continue unpacking the Cosmological argument, I want to note that there is no “God of the Gaps” reasoning going on. I’m not using God to plug up the holes in modern science. Nor am I trying to posit a theistic “science” to compete with secular science. Instead, I am using modern science to demonstrate that contemporary cosmology has rendered the likelihood of God’s existence much higher than it has been in the past. As well as that there is a great deal of concord between modern science and theism.

Many atheists have irresponsibly claimed that physics can explain how the universe could be uncaused and come into being from nothing. But what you will inevitably discover when analyzing those arguments is that they are not referring to true “nothing” but rather to a physical system that undergoes a change in state. If my opponent postulates any such “nothing” then it must be disregarded as scientifically inaccurate as such a system presupposes the existence of space-time.


The only formerly controversial premise of the cosmological argument is 1P2. That the universe began to exist. Modern science has put that controversy to rest.

P1: An infinite past cannot exist
P2: an infinite regression of temporal events necessitates an infinite past
C: an infinite regression of events cannot exist.

P1: to prove that an infinite past cannot exist, I would like to challenge my opponent to count from negative infinity to zero. It can’t be done because you have no place to start. You’re always in some undefined region of infinity. The same holds true for time. If the past was infinite you would never be able to reach any definite point of the timeline.

P2: if the uncaused cause is denied then we end up playing the “then what caused that?” game into eternity. Since these infinite regressions would need to occur in temporal sequence this regression would create an infinite past.

C: since an infinite regression of events creates an infinite past, and an infinite past cannot exist, it follows that 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.

Moreover in defense of P2: many people trying to avert the inevitable conclusion of the finitude of the past will offer a number of beginningless models that all fail for one reason or another. For example:

  1. Expanding models that run into the problem of singularity theorems.
  2. Asymptotically static models that run into the problem of metastability
  3. And endlessly expanding and contracting models that run into the problem of acausal fine tuning.

Alexander Velenkin noted that none of these models actually produce an uncaused universe and that all of the evidence we have points to the existence of a beginning.

Now, anyone who’s managed to bring themselves to read this far may be asking “ok, what does this have to do with God?” Consider the following: if there is a primordial force why then does the creation of the universe only occur at a finite point? If the uncaused cause is primordial, timeless, and changeless, why did it not bring the universe into existence earlier? Medieval Muslim theologians posited that since the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe were existent from eternity past if the uncaused cause were unconscious and impersonal, then the effect of the uncaused cause would have also existed from eternity past. Therefore, they argued that the uncaused cause must be personal, endowed with will and capable of creating a spontaneous effect. A man sitting from eternity past is always capable of standing up. An impersonal agent is capable of no such spontaneity.




The Teleological argument



This one should be shorter and require less setup.


Dr. Roger Penrose once calculated that the odds of a life supporting universe appearing by chance is less than one part in 10^10^123. Now, that number means absolutely nothing to most people because it’s simply too large to fathom. It is many times greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe. In fact, if you were to make the 1 necessary for the number then mark a zero for every proton, neutron, and electron in the observable universe you still wouldn’t even be close. Statisticians consider any event whose likelihood is less than one part in 10^52 to be impossible. To be less than one part in 10^10^123 is one trillion trillion trillion times less likely than that. This too points to the existence of a conscious personal creator. In the end, it requires much more faith to assume that all of the stipulations for a life-supporting universe were met by chance than to accept a creator. Everything from the size of the atom, to the ratio of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces, needed to be perfectly attuned or else the entire thing falls to pieces.

My opponent mentioned the teleological argument briefly in his constructive and stated that this indirect evidence is incorrect by stating that there are naturalistic explanations that are better than theism. Other than multiverse which I will address later, I’m still waiting to hear what they are.


Even Richard Dawkins, hardly a friend to Theism, had noted that the fine-tuning of the universe is not explained by scientific necessity through any known natural law. Furthermore, Oxford University mathematician Dr. Roger Penrose who is also not a theist has noted that the fine-tuning of the universe is not plausibly explained by chance. So I have to ask my opponent: what are these naturalistic explanations that he’s talking about?




Rebuttals


No direct evidence for God.

Taking into account the Cosmological argument we arrive at the conclusion that there is an uncaused cause. Now, the laws of quantum mechanics suggest that an uncaused cause if it lacks the power of will, either the conditions for the creation of a functioning universe would have always been met and the universe would be as primordial as the uncaused cause which we know it is not, or the conditions would never be met and thus the universe would never be created. Only a personal creator endowed with will would have the capacity to spontaneously create the universe at a defined and finite time. This constitutes direct evidence for a God. The LNM doesn’t exactly have the weight of quantum temporal dynamics behind it.


Better solutions than God.


The citation he makes for his claim only addresses a strawman “God of the gaps” position which I have not made. It talks about Newton claiming that God is the only explanation for the system of the planets. But I’m doing the opposite of what Newton did. Newton pointed to where science isn’t and said “look, there’s God” I’m looking to where science is and saying “Look, there’s God.” Rather than pointing to gaps in science, I point to science itself and what contemporary cosmology suggests about the universe.

Miracles can be replicated or explained

Maybe that’s true on a micro level. But as soon as we extrapolate that premise out to a cosmic scale that becomes much less tenable. You couldn’t replicate the universe if you had all of the means to try and a trillion years. The odds are just too small.




The evolution of God’s over time.


This does nothing to undermine a theistic position. So what if every God that humans have personified was made up? That doesn’t invalidate the argument that a God does exist. You say that all of your arguments mean that NECESSARILY all God’s are made up. That word “necessarily” has a definition in modal logic and you misused it. Necessarily means that it is required that your conclusion be true. It is not.


Multiverse

There are a number of problems with the multiverse.

  1. There is absolutely no evidence for the multiverse.
  2. Multiverse requires a multiverse generator or a “mother universe” that itself would require explanation
  3. The multiverse generator violates the laws of quantum mechanics by permanently severing information content from the mother universe.







The existence of an uncaused mind



The burden of proof is on the detractor in this instance. Arguing through inductive reasoning that since every mind we’ve ever seen has been attached to a physical and temporal brain means that no disembodied mind can exist. There is a difference between a general property and an essential property. All your inductive reasoning has done is to show that being associated with a brain is a general property of the mind and does nothing to show that it is an essential property of the mind.


Now, there was more I would have liked to get to about the Modal ontological argument, and the argument from morality but I procrastinated for too long and I have to catch a flight tomorrow morning so I need to go to sleep. also, It would likely double or even triple the length of this post. Especially the modal ontological argument. Maybe I’ll bring it up later. Maybe not. We’ll see.






References

https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems


https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06923   (Cosmological aspects of Higgs vacuum metastability)

The Kalam Cosmological argument Volume 2 by William Lane Craig.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe

Time and eternity by William Lane Craig.


Published:
Let’s dive right in!

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/

Round 3
Published:

Fallacy of composition

My opponent begins by accusing me of committing two fallacies. I will explain why that is untrue.

First he says I committed the fallacy of the composition. This claim actually comes from my list of "Objections so horrendously bad I couldn't have made them up" list. 
It totally misses the reasoning behind believing that the universe is caused. I will enumerate them here.

1. Something cannot come from nothing. to deny P1 is to believe that the universe just sprang into being for no reason whatsoever. That's absurd and will require a very high standard of proof.

2. If things CAN pop into being from nothing, then why do other things not do the same? why can't diet coke or unicycles just appear from nothing? You see, Nothing has no properties. Nothing cannot discriminate in favor of universes. If Universes can come into being from nothing, then so can anything else. But no one sincerely believes that to be true. 

3. All of the evidence points to P1 being true. This is an inductive argument (therefore not an argument from composition) P1 is constantly being reaffirmed and never being falsified. This inductive reasoning is making an inference about a class of things by taking a sample of the class. Inductive reasoning undergirds all of science and is not to be confused with argument by composition. It's hard to imagine an atheist who allegedly believes in modern science who can deny P1 despite all of the evidence arrayed in its favor and zero evidence against it.

Undistributed middle


Next he claims that nothing is the KCA necessitates the uncaused cause to be a personal creator. But that ignores all of my reasoning to the contrary. If the uncaused cause is impersonal then it would only be reacting to necessary conditions for the creation of the universe. But the uncaused cause would be surrounded by literal Nothing. This means either the conditions have always been met and the universe would have existed from eternity past (which is implausible scientifically) Or they were never met and the universe would never exist. Both of these are untrue. This leads me to the conclusion that the uncaused cause is by necessity a personal creator endowed with will.


The FSM test


my opponent attempts to undermine theism by postulating an eccentric God who chooses to manifest as spaghetti. Ignoring that transcendent spaghetti is definitionally absurd, this does nothing to undermine theism or my argument. The FSM test boils down to an intellectually lazy attempt to play around with definitions to create an impossibly absurd scenario instead of attacking the reasoning. The KCA does not state that any transcendent "thing" can exist (like divine meatballs or some such nonsense) but rather that some transcendent force must exist or everything breaks. the FSM constitutes strawmaning the KCA. Adding superfluous details in order to make the argument seem stupid is not a real objection.


multiverse


Con claims that I'm making a hypocritical argument when I say that the KCA is evidence for God but demand additional evidence for multiverse. I hold myself to the same standard. Which is why I provided additional reasoning as to why the uncaused cause is a personal agent endowed with will. I didn't just leave it with the KCA like my opponent is trying to do. Also, every single model of the multiverse is broken. Most of them violate quantum mechanics and the only semi-working model relies on imaginary numbers as the primary engine. Which makes no sense. IN are good for abstract computations, but when put into practical use they're worthless.

He also claims that Cosmic background radiation gives us a glimpse into the potential multiverse. Problem is, CMBR technology is a lot like grainy pictures of UFO's or Bigfoot. even the scientists behind the discovery admit as much."Yet the news is not all good. The CMB, a mostly random pattern, is notoriously open to so-called a posteriori observations—that is, you can see in it what you want to see. In one famous case, scientists claimed to make out the initials of the British physicist Stephen Hawking. Although Peiris's group calibrated its algorithm to avoid such mistakes, there is always the chance that the features could have a more mundane origin. "Unless nature reveals some exceptional feature in the CMB, it will be difficult to discriminate too many details about the dynamical processes occurring in the early universe," says Arjun Berera, a cosmologist at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom." This technology has a long way to go before It can be used with any degree of confidence. And it hardly constitutes sufficient evidence for Con's claim.


conceding the cosmological argument.

I concede nothing. I provided supplementary reasoning. I only ask that my opponent meets the same standard.




parent universes



Look up any model of the multiverse. Odds are it contains a mother universe. The way multiverse works is that there are many universes and that every now and then a new universe starts to pinch off from an old one. See, scientists know that something can't come from nothing so they include a "multiverse generator" in their models. Usually a parent universe. The reason that multiverse requires a cause is that in order for multiverse to work you have to come back to a material multiverse generator which is disqualified from being the uncaused cause because of its material composition and temporal finitude.

why does the multiverse have to follow the laws of quantum mechanics?



Because multiverse IS quantum mechanics. Without the laws of quantum mechanics, there is no multiverse. Also, you don't just get to throw out the rulebook whenever it's convenient. That's not how science works. Why is God exempt from this problem? because God would be immaterial and therefore contains no quantum information. Also, I'm not claiming that the universe pinched off of the body of God as multiverse does.


multiverse could create a universe at a finite time


true, but you still have to get back to the beginning. Multiverse isn't actually temporally infinite because that's still impossible for material things. Which is why most models of the multiverse even have the beginning marked on the mother universe. Multiverse exists solely to circumvent the fine-tuning argument. It doesn't do much against the KCA. You see, the creation of a new universe under multiverse theory is contingent upon the conditions of the parent universe. the KCA deals with Nothing. No parent universe, no Mother Universe, Nothing. the actual beginning.


exempting God

yes, God is exempt from some of the problems facing multiverse. Because God is not multiverse. They are different hypotheses with different hurdles to jump over. I'm not asking you to explain the immaterial mind of the multiverse now am I? Because multiverse doesn't have a mind. God doesn't have quantum information.

fine tuning

my opponent claims that the universe can only be claimed to be fine-tuned if there are no plausible explanations for why it is the way that it is. 1. I'm still waiting to hear what those might be 2. the universe can be claimed to be fine-tuned if the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is. Burden of proof is on you for the unified theory of everything. You don't just get to chuck out the evidence that's on the table because there could possibly be something else. You wouldn't let that slide for anything else. Why here? Am I justified in claiming that we can't say with any degree of confidence that birds build nests to house their young because it's plausible that they might be used to attract mates? Of course not. Because all of the evidence suggests that the former is true. Now if I could provide scientific evidence that birds build nests to attract mates then that's a different story. But I have to provide evidence. All of the evidence currently on the table says that the universe is fine-tuned. Whether or not it was fine-tuned by a Creator is still up for discussion though. You should do that.


reasoning for penrose calculation

the number he calculated and I believe I provided was 10^10^123 with the likelihood of a life-supporting universe being less than one part in that. These odds are statistically impossible. Therefore it is implausible that the universe was created by chance.

Number of universes


let's assume multiverse is true for a moment. You run into another problem very quickly. According to the laws of quantum mechanics used to build multiverse theory there is a finite amount of dark energy available for distribution. Now there is a certain amount of stable dark energy that is necessary to sustain a universe. This means that an infinite number of universes is impossible. That means that you can't hide behind an infinite number of universes to satisfy the probability of the universe. The number of universes in the multiverse is finite drastically decreasing the odds even of a life-supporting universe. Even at extremely large numbers of universes.

simulation

Con claims that we could potentially be in a computer program that simulates a universe. He claims that this is just a plausible as God. Really? how did this programmers universe come to exist? How did HE come to be there? now we're back to the KCA. (we're also back to con trying desperately to throw out the scientific rulebook.)

the universe is not fine-tuned

This argument only works if we assume that God wanted to make as much life as possible. Why? so species could war with each other? strain resources? Maybe God didn't want such a universe. Maybe he wanted to spread life out so far apart that they would never come into contact with each other. Take the conflicts on earth and add interstellar warfare. Yikes. Maybe the Earth will be destroyed by the sun in millions of years. But if we haven't figured out how to get off of this rock by then, we deserve it.

No direct evidence for God.

the KCA is not inductive. it is deductive. I move from one logically certain premise to the next leading to a logically certain conclusion. All by measuring the observable machinations of the universe.

God of the gaps 

My opponent appears to misunderstand what a God of the Gaps argument is. A GOTG argument goes thusly "Science says nothing about this, therefore God." My argument Goes "Science says X therefore god." Using scientific observation to reach a conclusion is the opposite of a GOTG argument. Maybe someday science will reverse the direction it's currently going in (making the universe seem less likely) and finally identify the uncaused cause. Or maybe science will stay the course and keep giving me new arguments. But again, you don't just get to throw out the evidence while you hold your breath for some discovery of which there is no sign. And using the scientific evidence currently on the table to formulate a hypothesis is not a GOTG argument. It's how all science is done. He still continues to ignore the difference between what Newton did and what I'm doing. Newton pointed to the planets and used the absence of science to point to the existence of God. I am pointing to SCIENCE ITSELF to justify the existence of God. You're the one who wants to ignore the evidence in favor of holding out for a discovery that may or may not be out there. In the end, you're more like Newton than me.

evolution of Gods

it does not follow that because zeus and Ra are fictitious that God himself is also ficitious. You still need to explain away the need for an uncaused cause, a personal creator, and the fine-tuning of the universe before you're anywhere close to disproving God. It does not follow that because the members of the set of Gods are fake, that the concept of God is also fake. All you have shown is that different cultures project different traits onto the concept of God and give God different names. That doesn't disprove or even cast doubt on the concept itself. You need to effectively answer the other arguments that indicate the existence of God. 

likelihood of the multiverse

This point is actually kind of laughable. He uses Ockham's razor to claim that the multiverse has fewer assumptions that an uncaused God. Nonsense. You have postulated a finite force that requires a constraining force. Now you've postulated two things. You've postulated that there are an infinite number of universes. You've postulated that the laws of physics don't apply to the multiverse, or the laws of thermodynamics, or quantum mechanics. Those are a lot of HUGE assumptions. All I've postulated is a personal uncaused cause and provided reasoning as to why both of those things likely exist. 
Published:
I’m going to cover the main arguments pro makes: categorized by arguments and counters.

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”
The fine tuning argument is that science cannot explain why the properties of the universe appear tuned for life - so it must be due to God.

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

Round 4
Published:
penrose number

In order to mathematically justify this myself, I would need to be able to type field equations into the debate. Which I cannot do for obvious reasons. You're just going to have to accept the scientific consensus. Also, this isn't even an argumentum ab auctoritate. You need to be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionallyIt is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

I'm not going to type a massive statistical equation into the debate and no one should expect me to.

The "Range of entropy" that my opponent talks about doesn't really exist. But if it did it would range from 0K to an undefinable number due to the expansion of the universe. But entropy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. the data set to prove it would look something like this (hopefully I can post these symbols) 







fine tuning

He claims that I didn't contest any of his points. Wrong. I challenged each and every one of his premises with the exception of one that I had already addressed. Which was why the uncaused cause is a personal agent. To prove that the uncaused cause is omnipotent requires very simple reasoning. The designer of the entire universe would by necessity have the capacity to specify every property of its creation thus having absolute control over it. Omnipresence follows by necessity from being spaceless and timeless and thus being unconstrained by both. I didn't challenge your "facts" because you didn't provide any. Only unsubstantiated claims that didn't meet even the lowest standard of proof. IE: you claimed that there could be a deeper law. okay, what is it? Do you have any evidence that there is one? Or are you just saying that one could maybe possibly exist therefore my argument is invalid?

torpedoing my own argument

you're going to have to explain what you're talking about bud. I don't see any torpedoing.

shifting my position.

My position never changed. I still hold that the universe was fine-tuned to support life. note that there is a difference between the universe as a whole and regions within the universe. The universe and its properties can be fine-tuned for life without every part of the universe being fine-tuned for life.

either you've horribly misunderstood my argument or I'm horribly misunderstanding yours. Either way, I don't think we're on the same page.


I haven't shown that fine-tuning means God exists

I thought this point was self-explanatory. I guess it's not. with the immense odds against the universe, chance is not a plausible explanation. Therefore, you need one of three things. a natural law that necessitates the properties of the universe. Which you would have to find and provide proof for. (This is not GOTG. It's how the burden of proof works. You don't just get to shout GOD OF THE GAPS whenever you don't want to have to prove your claims.) or a multiverse which is a horribly broken and borderline antiscientific theory. Or a personal creator. Combined with the argument from spontaneity component of the KCA this becomes the most likely explanation. Still not GOTG because of the supplementary evidence from the KCA.


shifting the burden of proof.

How about this: You prove your claims. I prove mine. You claim that there is a unified theory of everything then you have to provide supporting evidence/reasoning. I claim that God fine-tuned the universe, I provide supporting evidence/reasoning. I fulfilled my part. Your turn. It is not a GOTG argument to demand that you provide ANY evidence for your claims.

Multiverse

My opponent says:

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.

That still violates the laws of quantum mechanics. And you STILL haven't addressed that point satisfactorily. Merely attempting to throw out the basic building blocks of multiverse theory as soon as they're inconvenient is not a valid way to address this point.

yet if I provide an example with equal evidence, pro demands that I separately provide a theory of everything to explain it.
But you haven't. I demand you support your claims to the same standard that I have. You'll notice that all of my arguments are affirmed by reasoning that I've already established. You just make baseless claims and claim GOTG whenever I ask for evidence.


GOTG in depth

One more time. A GOTG argument goes thusly "science has nothing to say about this issue. therefore God."  my argument goes "based on the scientific evidence currently on the table, God is the most likely explanation." See the difference? My argument points towards science while a GOTG argument points away from science. I base my beliefs off of what is currently known to be true. Not off of what I hope will be discovered in the future. Which is what you do. You ignore and even deny modern science in favor of hoping that your positions will be affirmed at a later date. That's woefully antiscientific behavior.


the fallacy of composition.


Oh boy, it's back. I do not repeat a fallacy of composition largely because it was never committed. He claims that I claimed that if the laws of causality are not the same for the universe that this would mean that our laws of causality would be different. No. I argued that Something cannot come from Nothing. Nothing has no properties which means it doesn't have any causal power. You're going to have to explain how "something" with no properties can influence anything else. This argument has nothing to do with the causal laws of the universe but rather with incredibly rudimentary logic. More rudimentary logic shows us that even IF something can come from nothing, then anything could come from nothing because nothing has no properties. But it would appear that if your argument is true, that Nothing for some reason discriminates in favor of universes FOR NO REASON. These arguments are absurd and your claim of the fallacy of composition is also absurd.

probabilistic properties of the universe.

Simply put, the conditions being met for these things to happen constitutes the cause. A cause does not necessarily HAVE to be a singular event. it can be a conglomeration of events. take radiation for one example. I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. All atoms are essentially made of neutrons, protons, and electrons ( at the basic stages of learning). The nucleus consists of protons and neutrons. But since like repels like, the protons in the nucleus repel. And the magnitude of this force, is quite strong! So why doesn't the nucleus "explode"? This is because there exists another kind of force, called nuclear force, which is a short range force. It acts between the protons, between the protons and neutrons, and also between two neutrons. Thus this holds the protons together and prevents them from flying away.  But as we move on to atoms with higher atomic numbers in the periodic table, the size of the nucleus keeps increasing. And as I mentioned, nuclear force is a short range force. So as the size of the nucleus keeps increasing, the nuclear force keeps decreasing, and ultimately after a particular limit, the electrostatic force dominates the nuclear force. So the nucleus becomes unstable, thus it emits various kinds of subatomic particles (radiation) in order to become stable. Therefore, the existence of the electromagnetic and nuclear forces combined with the existence of the atom and the size of the nucleus constitutes the cause of radiation emission.

particles come from nothing on the quantum level

NO.

That is wrong on so many levels. What's actually happening is that the universe is trying to balance its checkbook if you will. The universe has a certain amount of positive and negative mass that needs to be in equilibrium. If that ever gets out of balance, the universe "spawns" a positive particle and a negative particle at the same place and time in order to PEMDAS the imbalance out. These particles don't come into being uncaused and they CERTAINLY don't come into being from nothing.


objects can be in two places at once

I'm kind of confused as to what this has to do with causality.


objects can cross impassable barriers

1. again, what does this have to do with causality. I can't address the point until you finish it.
2. if the barrier can be passed then it's by definition passable. I'm confused.


Extend my "what does this have to do with causality" question to the rest of his examples.

p1 stands.

fallacy of the undistributed middle.

I've already addressed omnipotence earlier in this post. Omniscience and omnipresence are necessitated by the nature of the uncaused cause. Existing outside of space-time and being the creator of space-time means that you are unconstrained by them. Omnipresence does not mean that God physically occupies every point in the universe, but rather that he can influence any point at any time and have knowledge of every point at all times. Because of special relativity, it can be concluded that the creator of time created all of time at once, therefore, being present at all points in time. Omniscience is trickier. Omniscience should be defined as having all propositional knowledge. Meaning that the omniscient being knows all facts and does not believe any false facts. The creator of all facts would by necessity know all facts. Therefore the uncaused cause as a personal agent knows all facts and is omniscient. Omnibenevolence is VERY tricky. And really impossible to argue. I don't want to get the ball rolling on this so just believe me when I say that if we try to argue omnibenevolence we would both start arguing in circles very quickly. Atheist and theist alike agree that omnibenevolence is an intellectually bankrupt line of argumentation which is why the question really isn't explored amongst top scholars of both sides. Omnibenevolence is not even a necessary property of God. I believe it's TRUE, but it's not necessary in the same way that the other properties are. All that is necessary about God is omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

I've already explained why God must be a personal creator But I'll do it again. Consider the uncaused cause before the advent of the universe. Just it. Surrounded by true Nothing. Now, as we know, Nothing has no properties. Therefore one of three things is true.


1. The uncaused cause is an impersonal agent who's mere existence is sufficient for the creation of the universe. If that were true then the conditions for the creation of the universe would have always been met and the universe would be primordial. But that's impossible as I've already proven.


2. The uncaused cause is an impersonal agent who's mere existence is insufficient for the creation of the universe. If this were true, then the conditions for the creation of the universe would NEVER be met and the universe would not exist. That's obviously untrue.

3. the uncaused cause is a personal creator endowed with will and with the capacity to act spontaneously. Since the other two options are impossible, I conclude that option three is correct.


If God is eternal - he has had an infinite time 
No God 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 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.
No. Because even 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. I use temporal terms like Never and always to make the argument coherent. But make no mistake. Time does not enter the equation.

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.
No, because then the universe would exist from eternity past. Which breaks the universe. Time has nothing to do with the pre-universe arm of the KCA.

multiverse satisfies KCA

I've already refuted every point he makes here. 

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.
So essentially what you're saying is you're going to posit a scientific theory, provide NO scientific evidence, not define any of your terms, and essentially establish an irrefutable premise? that hardly seems fair not to mention antiscientific.

multiverse generalized description.

remember at the very beginning of this debate wherein I stated that we should disregard any argument that con provides that tries to establish a "Nothing" that really isn't nothing? this is that argument. He says that his unscientific multiverse is a vast dimensional space. But space can't justify its own existence. It NEEDS to be created and it can't come from Nothing. This is why every working scientific model of the multiverse includes the beginning. Also, this model STILL DEFIES THE LAWS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. you can't separate quantum information from the parent universe. you CAN'T. That's against the rules. Yet your model does exactly that.

solves fine-tuning better than God.

No, because you have to break the laws of physics to make it work.

The assumptions listed above are the same as pro makes for God. 
Maybe, but you arrive there by breaking the laws of quantum mechanics. therefore, your model is invalid whether or Not is has fewer implicit assumptions.

Using Pros own deductive arguments - I have shown that the multiverse is a better solution than is God. 
No, you haven't. You've just reaffirmed your commitment to ignoring science.

Pro now implies that I must provide complex solution to show the multiverse is physically possible.
I don't think i'm beyond reason in asking that you PROVE YOUR CLAIM IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. that's like, as basic as it gets in terms of proof.

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.
Quantum information cannot be severed from any closed system. Pinching off a baby universe from a parent constitutes the creation of a new closed system and therefore a permanent loss of quantum information. This breaks the rules. I'm a bit of a stickler for rules.














This is literally the first scientific model I came across after searching for multiverse models. I don't know why you couldn't find one. Note that in this model the start of everything is clearly marked on the mother universe.



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.
The multiverse is only more likely than God if the multiverse exists. Which means you have to prove that it exists. If the multiverse doesn't exist, then God remains the best explanation. and seeing as the multiverse violates the laws of quantum mechanics, it seems that God is winning this battle.


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.
Except I did explain it. In multiple ways at multiple times. You've done absolutely nothing to prove your claim. I mean, not even an attempt. Even if we are a simulation, then that still doesn't even answer the argument. All you've done is push it into the programmer's world.

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.
This doesn't in any way address my argument as to why the FSM is invalid.

Pro conceded the KCA cannot be used as evidence for God, 
I did no such thing. 
The KCA requires either supplementary reasoning or it doesn’t.
It does. Which is why I provided it. You still haven't.

4.5.) Evolution of Gods.

Pro doesn’t really contest any of the facts here.
I haven't spent a lot of time addressing this argument because it doesn't really matter. See my previous arguments.

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.
I have fulfilled this burden. All you've done to show that "other solutions are more likely" is denying science.

References.

Published:
1.) Fine tuning

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.”
Pro solves the issue not by will - but by making God infinite.  This is before he contradicts himself two lines moments later 

“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”
Pro claims timelessness solves the problem for God, but doesn’t for the universe. This is before he simply reiterates the same assertion that the universe is infinite:

“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/

Round 5
Published:
 Penrose calculation
When You take all of the stipulations necessary for a life-supporting universe. IE: the size of the atom, the ratio of the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force, among thousands of others and you run all of these variables through a super complicated statistical equation you get a probabilistic result. That result is that the likelihood of a life-supporting universe appearing by chance is less than one part in 10^10^123. You can accept it or you can add it to your ever-expanding list of scientific facts that you deny.

fine tuning was proven to be untrue.

How? Where? just saying it doesn't make it true. I have refuted every argument you've made in this regard.



Arguing that I somehow speculated other fine-tuning factors

Again, you're going to have to elaborate. I never claimed to list all fine-tuning factors. If I did I would easily fill this entire post with them.


argument torpedoing. 

I maintain that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. That never changed. I honestly have NO idea what you're talking about.

parts of the universe are hostile to life

I've already addressed this argument in multiple ways. First is that packing the universe full of life is perhaps not the best way to build a functioning universe. Second, it is a very simple concept that the universe as a whole and it's properties is fine-tuned for life without individual sections of the universe, or even most sections of the universe, being fine-tuned for life. There is a distinct difference between the properties of the universe and the properties of regions of the universe.


flip-flopping my position on fine-tuning

Yes, I agree that individual segments of the universe are hostile to life. But that does not mean, nor have I ever conceded that it means, that the universe as a whole is not fine-tuned for life.



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]

None of this matters. see the preceding segment of this post.

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.
You still haven't addressed the argument I made to address this exact question. Merely restating your own position is not an argument.

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.
Untrue.

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.
All you're doing here is attempting to throw out all known science in favor of holding out hope that current scientific beliefs will be overturned in the future. The burden of proof is on YOU for this claim. Even the feeblest attempt at proof would be better than what you're doing now, which is nothing. This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy.

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.
Except for the laws of statistics, and the laws of physics destroying the multiverse, and your failure to justify your own claims.


God of the gaps... again.

This is first-grade stuff. C'mon. It is scientific behavior to look to modern science and use that science to justify my beliefs. It is antiscientific behavior to look at all of the developments of modern science since the enlightenment; the work of Newton, of Einstein, of Hawking, Schwarzschild, and Schrodinger and just throw out all of it in favor of assuming that your beliefs will be later affirmed not by filling in gaps, but by overturning our current understanding of the world. You have so far denied in this debate: the laws of statistics, physics, of quantum mechanics, even all of science in your multiverse argument (by asserting that none of the rules of science need to apply in the multiverse). and you call ME unscientific? that's absurd.


fallacy of composition...again.


It's become clear that you don't actually know what this fallacy is. In order for this fallacy to be committed, my argument would need to be that because all things in the universe have a cause, that therefore the universe has a cause. But that wasn't my argument. I made an argument from the basic rules of logic and rudimentary science to PROVE that something cannot come from nothing. Not that something cannot come from nothing within the universe, but that something can NEVER come from nothing because of the very nature of what Nothing is. You need to show how that even makes a shred of logical sense in order for your argument to be correct. You're trying to throw out science again. I'm not going to let you do it. Give it up. Play by the rules like everyone else has to. You also need to explain why nothing discriminates in favor of universes. You haven't justified this claim AT ALL and have just restated "fallacy of composition" like you actually know what it means.

Pro concedes things can happen without any precipitating and event or mechanical cause.
No, I didn't. Are you actually reading my posts? I explained how you made an EGREGIOUS scientific error in one of your claims, pointed out the causality in another and asked you to explain the link to causality in all of the others. What on Earth are you actually talking about?

redefining cause

I didn't redefine cause. A cause is merely a condition being met for the generation of an effect. These conditions can be singular or plural. That isn't only true on the quantum level either. There were innumerable conditions that needed to be met in order to cause this debate to occur. The invention of the computer, the internet, our parents meeting, this site being created, both of us creating an account, etc. A massive conglomeration of previous causes that came together at this time to generate the effect of this debate. It's less linear on the quantum level but the principle is the same.

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
So now you deny that cause and effect is a thing. Now it's statistics, physics, quantum mechanics, all of science, and now cause and effect. Is there anything you DO believe in?

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.
I contest that any of these examples you give are scientifically sound or have any link to causality.

This argument only holds true if I made an argument from composition. But I didn't. Also, the KCA happens before the universe, so showing that the universe functions in different ways at different levels does less than nothing to address the point.

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.
I never changed the definition of a cause. The only person who has done anything in regard to altering perceptions of causality is you when you claimed that cause and effect don't even exist.

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.
Are we denying logic now? you have done nothing to upend logic. you've barely supported any of your most basic claims. You certainly haven't done enough to compel us to throw out formal logic.


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
He says whilst ignoring my justification.


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
You've officially lost it. I never talked about the fine-tuning argument. you need to argue as if God exists in order to address the nature of omnipotence. IF God exists then he is omnipotent by NECESSITY because be was able to specity every aspect of the universe because HE CREATED IT. 


Interested in human affairs: pro drops this.
This is not a necessary property of God. Extend my dropped argument regarding omnibenevolence to 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.
Before the universe, there WAS NO TIME! you STILL haven't addressed the impossibility of infinite time because of thermodynamics and of practical infinities being physically impossible. 

Just... the rest of his argument relating to the finitude of time

This whole section of argumentation is incoherent and makes no scientific or logical sense. Time did not exist before the universe. If the uncaused cause is impersonal and the conditions of the universe were always met (which means that the uncaused cause itself is sufficient because Nothing has no properties.) then the universe would be primordial. Which is impossible. There would be an infinite time if the uncaused cause was impersonal. Because the conditions would have been met in eternity past and the universe would be primordial. Which breaks everything. You conceding that time is not infinite decimates your own argument. Torpedoes it if you will.

If the universe doesn’t exist within time, there is no problem to solve:
Yes, there is. You still need to address the problem of spontaneity. Something you still haven't done in any coherent way.

I'm going to address this ridiculous multiverse point in a short and sweet manner.

You don't just get to posit a scientifically ridiculous idea then say "no, no, it's metaphysical" No. A practical solution to a practical problem needs to be physically possible. God does not violate the laws of quantum mechanics. Multiverse does. The multiverse is impossible. God is not. In order to win this section of the debate all you had to do was prove that multiverse was at the very least physically possible. And you couldn't even do that.


Pro has not provided scientific evidence for his metaphysical argument - making this an unfair double standard.
That's all that this debate has been. Me arguing science and you desperately trying to ignore science. here's a list of all of the scientific evidence I used to support my points.

1. basic laws of quantum mechanics
2. the second law of thermodynamics
3. Statistics
4. Temporal dynamics
5. General physics
6. Special Relativity

You not only haven't used any science to back up your claims, but you have also actively denied science.

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.
No, you provided what amounts to a cosmic Bigfoot picture subject to massive amounts of confirmation bias. That's not real scientific evidence. Let's not forget that these same people claimed they saw Stephen Hawking's signature in cosmic background radiation. 

Pro goes on to assert that my metaphysical explanation must necessarily be subjective to the laws of physics, to quantum information. Why must it? 
Because multiverse isn't metaphysical. it's (allegedly) scientific. It uses quantum mechanics as its engine. You can't just tear it out because it's inconvenient. If you throw out quantum mechanics then you throw out the multiverse. To move multiverse from the realm of science to the realm of philosophy in order to circumvent the fact that it's literally impossible is an extraordinarily lazy copout.


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. 
Not any cause of the universe fitting those criteria. Just any that use the laws of physics and quantum mechanics to justify themselves as multiverse does.

You have to follow the rules. If you take quantum mechanics out of multiverse you break it. It doesn't work without quantum mechanics. It's like taking the engine out of your car and expecting it to run. That would be dumb and so is this.

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.
Except for all of the times that I did exactly that.

Firstly - I don’t really need to: I just have to show my case is as likely as pros - refuting the resolution.
You haven't. Your explanation is physically impossible. Which by definition makes it as unlikely as anything can be.



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.
This isn't hard. All you've done is postulate an eccentric God that chooses to manifest as spaghetti. You've added superfluous details to strawman the theistic position but you haven't done anything at all to refute it. the FSM test isn't just absurd it's stupid. Let's apply the same logic to the multiverse. "If multiverse it true then there's a universe in which everyone's heads and butts are inverted. therefore multiverse isn't true because I can use it to make something that sounds stupid." You wouldn't accept that argument. And you shouldn't. Because it's dumb.


  • 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 chose to ignore these because they were either addressed indirectly in the pursuit of other lines of argumentation or because (like in the case of the "Some God's are fake" argument) They don't matter and don't actually impact whether or not God is real.


    Conclusion.

    My opponent has one consistent trend throughout this debate. And that is science denial. His position is so untenable that he can only hold it if he denies all known science and postulates a physically impossible solution to my arguments then claims that it doesn't matter that it's physically impossible because it's metaphysical or something. His arguments are incoherent, illogical, and anti-scientific.

    If You think that science is important and that a solution to a practical problem needs to be grounded in reality, vote pro.


    Please note that any new argument brought up in my opponent's next post that isn't in direct response to an argument made in my post should be entirely disregarded as I won't have a chance to respond.

    Also, Kudos to anyone who actually read this far I know there was a lot of repitition and scientific jargon to wade through.
    Published:
    While pro does not forbid final round rebuttals; as he waived the first round I will dedicate the final round to a summary only, not a full rebuttal.

    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.



    Added:
    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).
    #19
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu, @Patmos
    ---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!).
    #18
    Added:
    ---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...’)
    #17
    Added:
    ---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).
    #16
    Added:
    ---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).
    #15
    Added:
    ---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).
    #14
    Added:
    ---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.
    #13
    Added:
    ---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.
    ---
    #12
    Added:
    ---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.
    #11
    Added:
    ---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.
    #10
    Added:
    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.
    #9
    Added:
    A lot of misinformation about his divine noodliness. To minimize confusion, I suggest watching this quick primer: https://vimeo.com/31543194
    #8
    Added:
    --> @Patmos
    Thanks for the debate; I genuinely enjoyed that, and appreciate that you stayed all the way to the end!
    Contender
    #7
    Added:
    daaang, I took me like 30 seconds to scroll through that
    #6
    Added:
    --> @GuitarSlinger
    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.
    Contender
    #5
    #1
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    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!).