The Instigator
kenballer
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
kenballer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,719 times Debate No: 100774
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (80)
Votes (2)

 

kenballer

Pro

In this debate, I will be showing how scientific evidence already demonstrates the existence of a Theistic God that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God concept.

I will be in the affirmative of this proposition while my opponent will be on the negative.


The Theist God in question ,within the confines of this debate, will be a Personal cause who is the creator (i.e. Immaterial) and sustainer ( i.e. ruler) of the Universe and is omnipotent , omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, spaceless and timeless, eternal, and necessary being.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro.
I accept.
I accept to negate that existing scientific evidence justifies a belief in a creator and ruler of the universe that is personal, tetra-omni, spacetime-less, eternal and necessary.

I request that Death23, Uniferous, and Hoppi do not vote on this debate.
I also request a thorough RFD from voters.
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Pro

Observations


Origin of the Universe

Alan Guth along with Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenken developed a singularity theorem and a inflationary theorem. If you combine the two theorem, They would mathematically prove that any universe that is on average in a state of cosmic expansion greater than 0 throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space time boundary or singularity [1] [2]. It’s stronger than Roger Penrose’s and Stephen Hawking’s singularity theorem because it does not assume Einstein’s equations that breakdown at the quantum level. Alxander Vilenken went a step further to explain in a different article why other attempts to demonstrate a past eternal universe are unsuccessful under classical physics [3].

Now, even though the BGV theorem only applies to general relativity and classical space-time, the law of entropy is a property of quantum physics along with classical physics, which means quantum physics would require a singularity theorem as well, as Aron C. Wall showed: “The generalized second law can be used to prove a singularity theorem, by generalizing the notion of a trapped surface to quantum situations...... If space is finite instead, the generalized second law requires that there only be a finite amount of entropy producing processes in the past" [4].


A Finely-tuned Universe

According to the Planck scale WMAP results, Researchers have demonstrated—to a spectacular degree far greater than what was possible just a few years ago—that the fundamental constants in physics remained fixed over the history of the universe. For the first time, astronomers have confirmed the constancy of the physical laws to the entire geographical extent of the universe [5]. This means that whatever caused the big bang also caused the finely tuned constants to come into being and maintained their values from the very beginning.



The God Hypothesis


The law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. Since an antecedent material cause would not apply in this situation, the only known causal force or interaction capable of creating a simultaneous effect while being immaterial and outside of classical space-time is a mind. For example, experiments in neuroscience have demonstrated that humans do not experience only one interval of time, but a second space-time dimension [6].

Another reason why the mind is the only known candidate is found within quantum physics. For instance, abstract mathematical objects called wave functions are used to describe particles of energy, and each of these wave functions represents a different possible configuration of matter or a universe. The double-slit experiment demonstrated that a macroscopic observer (whether computer or human) is required to bring and sustain a particle from a quantum mechanical wave-function to a classical space-time dimension just by observing it. Moreover, another experiment show that when a precise measurement is performed on one particle, it can instantly affect the position and velocity of another particle or multiple particles at unlimited distances without a mechanism between the interactions [7]. Most importantly, further experiments , which are similar in nature, demonstrate how the "conscious" observer plays a role in shaping physical reality within these processes [8].

Thus, all these experiments show how the human mind is capable of producing simultaneous effects and would explain the universe's origin. However, conscious observers ,ultimately, emerge from physical laws that impose limits on a person's power, knowledge and location. On the other hand, if mind is responsible for the universe's beginning, the physical laws would have to emerge from the conscious agent instead. Therefore, if my hypothesis is true, then we should find certain aspects of the universe that exemplify a being with unlimited capabilities, such as power and knowledge. Before I provide this evidence, let me provide a scientific or technical definition of this cause.

The definition of a second space-time dimension (i.e spaceless, timeless) is a moment of time without past or future, called the "now", where time and space either function much slower or are under a stationary mode of existence . Abstract objects (or digital information) are examples of entities that operate under a second space-time dimension. The mind, which would encompass “personhood” or “consciousness”, is also a second space-time dimension but has causal powers that can use abstract objects to manipulate matter and energy without any preexisting antecedent condition or cause. Thus, this cause would be a combination of these two examples.


Omni-potent, Omniscient and Omnipresence



Eternal inflation suggests the expansion rate of the universe will continue to accelerate forever and create an endless amount of configured pocket universes within the black hole regions of our universe [9]. These small regions (i.e. gravitation waves) that are created by inflation have a background radiation that is nearly the exact same temperature as the background radiation of other regions where their space-time curvature is evolving lock-step with ours, but separating apart from each other in all directions [10]. This acceleration of the expansion from inflation is supposed to be produced from an explosion or collision of quantum particles called "dark energy" that permeate the entire universe where a billion (plus one) of positive particles and a billion of negative particles come into existence at once [11]. Then, they annihilate each other out of existence, and the leftover positive particle creates a smaller universe and accelerates the expansion of our universe in the process.

The many worlds interpretational view of quantum phenomena describes how particles emerge to eventually become universes. For instance, this model views wave-functions , which are abstract mathematical objects, as real existing objects rather than useful fictions or human inventions. More importantly, the model suggests that there is a universal wave-function representing the totality of existence where there is an "infinite number of wave-functions" and here is an article providing evidence for it [12]. Finally, Here is a model provided by scientists that merges both classical and quantum models of the universe into a "Theory of Everything" [13][14]. Thus, this suggests that the cause is a all-knowing, all-powerful universal mind.


Eternal, Personal, and Necessary


Since dark energy is consistent with general relativity and affects the expansion of the universe, then the cosmologic constant would apply to the smaller universes created within the regions of our universe as well. For example, the cosmological constant is placed at a precise measurement of 10 to the 120th power , and when scientists trace the expansion back one second after the Planck scale of our universe, the degree of precision becomes an astounding value of 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power.

Hypothetically, this means that if our universe’s expansion rate had different values with larger amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion that try to clump together to form planets and stars ,where life of any kind might evolve on (or evolve at all), would have most likely blown the cosmic material apart instead. If our universe’s expansion rate had different values with smaller amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion would have most likely collapsed back into a singularity before it ever reached its present size.

Therefore, this suggests that the cause is "personal" because it chose the right values needed to allow life and was aware of the consequences of not doing so, which provides evidence for design. Moreover, it suggests that this cause must exist "necessarily" in all possible worlds to create and sustain universes and allow life to evolve. Lastly, since the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the universe, this law would not apply to this cause and ,thus, it would be "eternal".

In the next round, I will provide evidence supporting the Omnibenevolence attribute.


[1] Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin. Singularities in Inflationary Cosmology: A Review. Int.J.Mod.Phys. D5 (1996) 813-824

[2] Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Vilenkin. Inflationary spacetimes are not pastcomplete. Phys.Rev.Lett. 90 (2003) 151301
[3] Audrey Mithani, Alexander Vilenkin. Did the universe have a beginning?. arXiv:1204.4658
[4] Aron C. Wall. The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem. Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 165003 (2013)

[5] Jon O’Bryan et al., "Constraints on Spatial Variations in the Fine-Structure Constant from Planck,"


[6] Eagleman DM. Human time perception and its illusions. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2008; 18:131–136.
[7] Boris Braverman, and Christoph Simon. Proposal to Observe the Nonlocality of Bohmian Trajectories with Entangled Photons. Physical Review Letters, 2013

[8] https://www.newscientist.com......

[9] Alan H. Guth. Eternal inflation and its implications. J.Phys.A40:6811-6826, 2007
[10] https://www.forbes.com......

[11] Tim Schrabback et al. Evidence for the accelerated expansion of the Universe from weak lensing tomography with COSMOS. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2010
[12] Margalef-Bentabol, Berta; Margalef-Bentabol, Juan; Cepa, Jordi (8 February 2013). "Evolution of the cosmological horizons in a universe with countably infinitely many state equations". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. 015 2013 (02).

[13] Ignacio J. Araya, Itzhak Bars. Generalized Dualities in 1T-Physics as Holographic Predictions from 2T-Physics. arXiv:1311.4205v2

[14] Itzhak Bars, Gauge Symmetry in Phase Space, Consequences for Physics and Spacetime, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 5235-5252.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for your 2nd round Pro.
Pro attempted to affirm most of his burden.
There were no explicit rules for rounds, so I'll just start refuting Pro.

*The Origin of the Universe*

Pro explains that cosmic inflation is a fact, that the universe cannot be infinite in the past, that the universe has a beginning singularity, and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies on the quantum level.

So?
What does any of that have to do with whether or not science justifies believing in a personal universe creator?
It's great that Pro gave a quasi-accurate rendition of science's current understanding on the properties and characteristics of the universe, but Pro makes no attempt to show how this exclusively indicates a justified belief in a personal creator behind the origin of the universe.
Pro just shows that science explains a beginning to all existing space and matter, sans any mention of god.

Pro also makes no attempt to show how creation, a temporal (time-based) process, could have occurred without time, time being a property Pro admits originated *with* the universe given Pro's explanation of inflation via Alan Guth and friends.


*A Finely-Tuned Universe*

I've always particularly hated this argument, because it's such an after-the-fact, naively human-centered, begging-the-question conclusion about how the universe works.

People who use this argument are all like:
"Hey things function well, therefore all things must have been planned in the way that I, as a human, would plan them, and I should call it tuning to smuggle in an intelligent tuner behind it all and then I can retrofit scientific evidence."

Pro claims:
"Researchers have demonstrated...that the fundamental constants in physics remained fixed over the history of the universe...astronomers have confirmed the constancy of the physical laws to the entire geographical extent of the universe..."

My response:
Now, you may have noticed that Pro used a source for this [Pro Source #5] that's not linkable, so I found a link to it.
http://iopscience.iop.org...

What Pro tried to do here is sneak one passed the readers, but I found the author's actual published work on this particular matter and Pro was being slightly dishonest.

The author clearly explains that "we find no sign of spatial variations in the fine-structure constant."
BUT.
The author also clearly explains that the fine-structure constant is just "one possible variation" and that "physical constants vary across space and time in the history of the universe."

So, even though Pro's source shows that there is no *spatial* variations within the fine-structure constant, it speaks not to other types of variations or the other constants.

Therefore, Pro saying "astronomers have confirmed the constancy of the physical laws to the entire geographical extent of the universe" is a gross overstatement.
No spatial variations =/= no variations.
Fine-structure constant =/= all constants.

So, Pro cannot say that their personal creator god "maintained their values from the beginning."
The only value shown to be maintained is the spatial variability of the fine-structure constant, no other variability, and no other constants.
But, it hasn't even been shown that some intelligence has been maintaining it, it simply shows what a constant is...unchanging.


*The God Hypothesis*

Pro attempts to show that god is a mind, because only a mind can be a cause that can interact to create a simultaneous effect while being immaterial and outside of space time.

There are 3 problems with this.

1. Minds are contingent on brains; the mind is a construct that represents the inner workings of the brain.
2. Since minds are contingent on the brain, and the brain is made of particles/material, they are not immaterial.
3. Being that minds are contingent on the material, existent-in-time-and-space brain, the mind is not outside of spacetime.

Pro also uses another source that is unlinkable, but guess what?
I found it.
Pro's source #6 can be found here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Pro claims:
"experiments in neuroscience have demonstrated that humans do not experience only one interval of time, but a second space-time dimension."

My response:
Ok, so check the link yourself, and see if you can find ANY mention of a second space-time dimension.
Seriously, use the word search tool on your browser and see any mention of it.
It's not there, and instead, what you read is quite clear.

People experience perceived time dilation given certain stimuli.
"perceived durations can be distorted by saccades, by an oddball in a sequence, or by stimulus complexity or magnitude...the confederacy of recently discovered illusions points to the underlying neural mechanisms of time perception."

NOTHING in there mentioned anything about a second interval of time...nothing,
This is just Pro hoping that no one will check up on his unlinked sources, so he can smuggle in crap like "the mind is in some other time dimension."

So I reject the rest of Pro's god hypothesis, because it's based on a faulty premise that the mind is somehow immaterial and not a property of the physical brain.
The mind is a physical thing because it's contingent on the physical brain, so it's not immaterial, transcendent, or outside of spacetime.

Pro just kind of continues to assert that there's this "second space-time dimension," but I assure you, none of his sources even mention that, and Pro never provided any reason to accept another time dimension.


*OmniPotent, OmniScient, OmniPresent*

Pro takes the "Theory of Everything" model which attempts to join the theory of general relativity with quantum gravity and attempts to use the theory to show an all powerful, all knowing bla bla bla.

But Pro's source that he claims, "is a model provided by scientists that merges both classical and quantum models of the universe into a "Theory of Everything" has no such thing in it...see for yourself.
https://www.researchgate.net...

What you do find is the researchers mentioning a lot about duality and phase space gauge symmetry, none of which complete the theory of everything or even come close to indicating an omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence.

So when Pro says "thus, [Pro's source's data] suggests that the cause is a all-knowing, all-powerful universal mind" one can dismiss this because it is false and nowhere in Pro's intentionally unlinked sources.
See for yourself.


*Eternal, Personal, Necessary*

Pro links the universe allowing for life with a personal entity.
That's really all Pro did here.
Pro asserts that the values were chosen, but in no way attempts to explain how this is the case beyond his assertion.
Pro has given no reason to think that the right values could only occur if they were chosen that way.

In fact, all of the sources that Pro used in his 2nd round indicate naturally occurring phenomena without any indication of any intelligence behind any of the phenomena presented.
Why is that?


*Creation Is Temporal*

Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.

See for yourself:

creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

process - a SERIES of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

series - a number of events of a related kind coming one AFTER another.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

after - in the TIME following an event.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

This means that creation is inherently time-based.
Going from creator-->created product is therefore temporal.
This also means that creators necessarily use a time-based process to bring about their creations.


*Precedence Is Temporal*

Creators not only use a time-based process consisting of one event after another, they also necessarily precede their creations.

The process of creator existing-->creating-->created product can only be described if and only if the creator comes before, or precedes, its creation.

Well, before (precedence) is another temporal or time-based concept.
How could a creator precede its creation without time?

before - during the period of TIME preceding.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Pro, can you distinguish between a creator and its created product without using time or temporal concepts?
I argue that without time, one cannot tell the difference between a creator and its created product; one wouldn't be able to tell if creation has occurred because there would be no precedence.


*No Creator of the Universe*

So, when there was no time, there could not have been creation, because creation is necessarily temporal and so is precedence.
This also means that the universe wasn't created, because spacetime began at the universe's origin.

Unfortunately for god, in this debate, a creator of the universe doesn't exist, because the time required for such a process, creation, originates with the space of the universe which wasn't there without the universe.

No space, no time, no creation, no creator of the universe, no god in this debate.

Next round I will also attack the contradictions of Omnipotence and continue refuting Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Pro

Let me clarify to everyone including CON the stipulations of this debate. The BOP is on me, which means my job here is to bring all the scientific evidence together that would make enough of a case to justify an individual to believe in a Theistic God. The only thing CON needs to do is to thwart my attempts by attacking the interpretations I give for the evidence. Lastly, I am not required to bring links along side my sources, especially when links are unreliable because they often don't work or the content inside the link can go away easily. Remember, the subject matter is science not philosophy. Scientific journals would not tolerate the usage of links, and since CON is acting as the peer-reviewer, the onus is on him to use my sources to find those links himself.



Omnibenevolence

Digital information is composed of abstract objects and analog information is composed of concrete objects. DNA possesses these types of information processes where the nucleotide sequence both specifies the digital information of the gene and the higher order architectures of the genome, which have an impact on the expression of the digital information found in the gene [1]. More importantly, both the digital and analog information present in DNA are imitations of our conscious agency. For example, the genome is virtually identical to computer operating systems [2], and the genetic information in DNA is mathematically identical to that in human language [3].

Of course, some scientists insist that these comparisons between DNA information and human information are merely used in a metaphorical sense [4]. This contradicts the work done by biotechnologists who store specified information within the nucleotide sequences of DNA or RNA. For instance, Church and Kosuri were able to create a biotech version of an e-reader, with the highest storage capacity to date [5]. Furthermore, digital information has been shown to be unquestionably necessary for replication and for cells to have instructions to build themselves into large body organisms. The digital code is required before any kind of evolution can occur. This means that the same personal cause, which created and designed the universe, must have created and designed life on earth. If this is true, we should find function or purpose from alleged designs that seem to only bring harm and degeneration upon that organism or to other organisms. Here is a showcase of alleged evil designs that challenge the integrity of a omnibenevolent being.


A. Viruses are considered evil designs because they are responsible for a number of harmful diseases in animals and humans, such as the ebola virus. However, studies show how viruses play a vital role within ocean nutrient cycles [6]. The beneficial role of viruses applies to terrestrial environments as well since viruses modulate host population ecology, food web structure, energy and nutrient flow between habitats, and apparent competition processes, and they favor habitat formation [7]. Consequently, viruses are natural but necessary evils.


B. Carnivores are considered sinister designs because they often are responsible for producing mass extinctions within herbivore populations. However, several studies show how animal death and carnivorous activity play a necessary role in preventing an overpopulation of herbivores that would potentially go extinct from starvation by eating all their food sources and the fixation of harmful mutations within populations that would potentially cause the population to become extinct as well [8][9].


C. In animals, injury can lead to long-lasting distress, whereby frequent exposure to pain-producing stimuli causes a progressively amplified response well after the injury has healed. This phenomenon has been referred to as “nociceptive sensitization.” Biomedical researchers have long viewed nociceptive sensitization as maladaptive because, in humans, it is associated with anxiety. However, researchers studied nociceptive sensitizations in squids and concluded that heightened sensitivity to pain helps these creatures evade predation. Squids are an outstanding laboratory model because they undertake a precise sequence of defensive behaviors when threatened by a predator. For instance, when endangered, squids fully recovered from a previous injury reacted sooner than those that had not been injured. Conversely, the previously injured squids exhibited a slower response to predatory threats when the scientists used anesthetic to block the pain immediately after injury, thus preventing nociceptive sensitization. Since nociceptive sensitization is pervasive, it likely serves a similar benefit among other animals, as well. Thus, these results indicate that pain (or suffering) plays a key role in enhancing the survival of animals following an injury and recovery [10].





Cancer and harmful mutations


The harmful effects of cancerous mutations in organisms is primarily a result of decay imposed by the second law of thermodynamics rather than being a sinisterly designed organism. However, some might argue that an all-powerful all-knowing morally perfect designer, who cares for the well-being of its creation, could have more effectively designed living organisms in which these instances would not occur at all. However, the second law is a property of quantum physics as well as classical physics, which means the second law would have to exist in all possible worlds unlike other laws of nature [11]. This suggests that suspension of the second law (i.e., a miracle) would be required to prevent them from occurring at all. Since the laws of physics are a reflection of this designer’s personal nature, we would not expect a miracle to happen. Instead, we would expect the designer to remain consistent and use the laws of nature to eliminate these instances.

For example, the researchers discovered that the hot- and cold-spot locations in mutations are not random [12]. They went further to explain how current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate does not explain these observations, suggesting that other mechanisms must be involved. Thus, it appears that the mutation rates have been fine-tuned to lower the risk of harmful genetic changes [13]. A similar study suggested that mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve critical protein function [14]. There are other studies that show how the harmful mutations that do arise are regulated to preserve a balance between predator and prey populations because too many predators or prey can cause a collapse of the ecosystem [15][8].
Thus, mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA are abundantly involved in apoptosis, which is the single most important feature of multicellularity because it ensures timely death of individual cells. Cancer may be the ecological equivalent of apoptosis, ensuring the timely death of individuals so that resources are available for the young. Perhaps, there is sufficient reason in allowing some of these deleterious mutations to occur in humans as well. For example, the sickle cell disease has been shown to confer a survival advantage against malaria, the disease caused by Plasmodium infection [16]. In addition, there are examples of cancer cells developing through viral infection and thus, as stated before, viruses are necessary evils. Further research might find more cases like these in other genetic diseases [17].


In the next round, I will provide a rebuttable to my opponents objections.


[1] Muskhelishvili G, Travers A. Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Properties of the DNA Code Reveals Chromosomes as Thermodynamic Machines Converting Energy into Information. Cell Mol Life Sci 2013; 70:4555–4567.

[2] Yan KK et al. Comparing Genomes to Computer Operating Systems in Terms of the Topology and Evolution of Their Regulatory Control Networks. PNAS 2010; 107:9186–9191.

[3] Yockey H. Self-organization origin of life scenarios and information theory. Theo. Bio. 1981; 91.

[4] Pigliucci M, Boudry M. Why Machine-Information Metaphors are Bad for Science and Science Education. Sci. and Ed. 2011; 20: 453–471.

[5] Church, G. M., Gao, Y. & Kosuri, S. (2012). Next-generation digital information storage in DNA. Science 337, 6102.

[6] Danovaro, R et al. (2008). Major viral impact on the functioning of benthic deep-sea ecosystems. Nature 454: 1084–1087.

[7] Lefèvre, T., Lebarbenchon, C., Missé, D., Poulin, R., Thomas, F. (2009). The ecological significance of manipulative parasites. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24, 41–48.

[8] Moore, S. M., Borer, E. T. & Hosseiniet, P. R. (2010) Predators indirectly control vector-borne disease: linking predator–prey and host–pathogen models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 7, 161–176.

[9] Schmitz, O. J., Hawlena, D. & Trussell, G. C. (2010) Predator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Ecology Letters 13, 1199–209.

[10] Crook et.al. (2014) Nociceptive sensitization reduces predation risk. Current Biology 24, 1121–25.

[11] Aron C. Wall. The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem. Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 165003 (2013)

[12] Martincorena I., Seshasayee, A. S. & Luscombe, N. M. (2012). Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an

evolutionary risk management strategy. Nature 485, 95–98.

[13] Martincorena, I. & Luscombe, N. M. (2013). Non-random mutation: the evolution of targeted hypermutation and

hypomutation. Bioessays 35, 123–130.

[14] Garvin, M. R. & Gharrett, A. J. (2014). Evolution: are the monkeys' typewriters rigged? Royal Society of Open

Science 1, 140172.

[15] Gilljam, D., Curtsdotter, A., Ebenman, B. (2015) Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in

ecosystems. Nature Communications, 2015;

[16] Ferreira, A. et al.(2011) Sickle Hemoglobin Confers Tolerance to Plasmodium Infection. Cell 145, 398–409

[17] Morelli, G. et al. (2004). DNA microarray analysis of genome dynamics in Yersinia pestis: insights into bacterial

genome microevolution and niche adaptation. Journal of Bacteriology 186, 5138–5146.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro, for your 3rd round and your "clarification to everyone" about stipulations.
Pro spent a lot of time trying to link digital information and DNA.
Pro also spent a lot of time excusing "necessary evils."
Here's my take.

*Omnibenevolence*

Pro makes an analogy between digital information and DNA, genomes and operating systems, and human language's math and DNA's math.

Well, analogy is not equality.
I get that languages, be they human, computer, or genetic, show similarities because they all function in a similar way, but this does not speak to whether they have a common intelligence, a common designer, or, more importantly, a common omnibenevolence.

Birdsong (birds' language) is linguistically very similar to human language phonologically and syntactically, but that doesn't mean that human intelligence is being used to organize bird sounds in a particular order or that avian intelligence is being used to arrange human sounds in a specific structure.

"both birdsong and human language are hierarchically organized according to particular syntactic constraints, birdsong structure is best characterized as 'phonological syntax', resembling aspects of human sound structure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

But bird languages lack semantics and words, so the intelligence they're using to create their syntax isn't the same as the intelligence we're using to create syntax in our languages; though you can draw an analogy, you cannot infer common intelligence.

So, I really don't care if Pro wants to draw analogies among languages.
These analogies do no indicate a common intelligence or benevolence, much like my birdsong analogy doesn't indicate common intelligence or benevolence.

The problem here is that Pro is attempting to prove that science justifies a belief in an omnibenevolence.
So, even if Pro got to the link between "intelligently designed languages" and "DNA," this wouldn't be science justifying a belief in an omnibenevolence, rather, this would be science justifying a belief in a cryptic prankster.

Either way, omnibenevolence means unlimited goodness.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Anything with unlimited goodness would have no evil, nor be responsible for allowing evil.

But Pro made it quite clear in his 3rd round:
"Viruses are considered evil designs because they are responsible for a number of harmful diseases in animals and humans...Consequently, viruses are natural but necessary evils."

My response:
Pro clearly admits here that his omnibenevolent creator not only has created an evil in viruses, but that this evil is necessary.
This not only negates his god's omnibenevolence, but the fact that the evil is *necessary* means that god was forced to create the evil and *could not* have done it any other way.
If he could have created everything without evil, and he has every power to do so, then shouldn't his benevolence coax him to use his omnipotence to just not create evil.

Why is evil necessary for your omnibenevolent, omnipotent god Pro?
Does god have the power to create all of existence without evil?
Why/why not?


*Cancer and Mutations*

Pro just sort of continues on excusing the evils of nature that his god supposedly created via population control and resource competition.
That's really it.

Well, this again shows that god can't create and sustain life without having to kill innocent organisms to control the population explosion he knew would happen to the things he planned to have it happen to because of pressures he knowingly put in to place to mess with his creations.

Why can't an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god create this beautiful universe without evil, innocent death, necessary evils, or necessary population control via harmful evil viruses?

Why can't an omnipotence do that?
Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Pro

A. "Creators not only use a time-based process consisting of one event after another, they also necessarily precede their creations"


I am afraid CON could not be more wrong here. He is referring to a classical understanding of cause and effect relations within physics called "principle of locality", where an event at one point cannot cause a simultaneous result at another point. Here is an article referring to it: https://en.wikipedia.org...

However, you cannot apply our understanding of classical physics at the very first moment of the big bang because Einsteins equations breakdown at the big bang and , thus, it requires a quantum mechanical description to apply it at that point in time. Secondly, quantum entanglement experiments have demonstrated the existence of simulataneous cause and effect relation, which I have already pointing out in round 2. This is why I specifically stated the law of causality as , "every material effect must have an adequate antecedent OR simultaneous cause", in order to encompass our present understandings of both classical and quantum causal relations. Therefore, the best way to describe the first moment of the big bang is to say that the same moment in which the universe first came into being was the same moment it was caused or created by an immaterial spaceless timeless cause. This leads me to the next objection CON has raised.



B. "There are 3 problems with this.

1. Minds are contingent on brains; the mind is a construct that represents the inner workings of the brain.
2. Since minds are contingent on the brain, and the brain is made of particles/material, they are not immaterial.
3. Being that minds are contingent on the material, existent-in-time-and-space brain, the mind is not outside of spacetime."




Let me clarify my interpretation of the evidence I presented in round 2. I am assuming property dualism NOT substance dualism. This means that I would agree with just about everything CON suggested here. The only exception to this is his contention that the mind has absolutely no causal power and, thus, does not operate in a different dimension. The evidence that the mind has at least some causal power is self-evidently experienced by every person in the world. For example, our ability to form intentional states about something, such as what is happening in this debate as we speak. More importantly, our ability to apply phyiscal manifestations of digital information or abstract objects ,not contingent upon nature, into the material world. My hypothesis only needs these two conditions to be true.

Therefore, the burden of proof would be on CON for him to suggest that every thing was simply created by the brain. Right now, present experiments, at best, either show a strong correlation between brain and mental events (i.e. MRI scans) or merely disprove substance dualism, such as brain damage. However, Correlation does not prove causation and property dualism avoids objections that only apply to substance dualism because property dualism accepts that the mind emerged and is causally connected to the brain.



C. "Pro never provided any reason to accept another time dimension"


This is simply not true. I provided a source to everyone in Round 2 regarding a model of the universe that merges both classical and quantum models, which describe a universe with 4 space plus 2 time dimensions. This model yields predictions that have already been confirmed by scientists and, thus, provides evidence for the existence of a second space-time dimension.

I have also provided a source that shows how the mind operates under a second space time dimension within the field of neuroscience. CON responded to this by arguing that because my source does not specifically label it a "second space-time dimension or interval" in which humans are operating under, then the source is not referring to my conclusions or interpreations of the evidence. I feel CON is playing with semantics here in order to win the debate because he does not explain at all as to why the author was referring to something different than what my label and its definition is suggesting. Nevertheless, I will present a paragraph from the source that clearly does refer to my label and its definition:


"Is time one thing?
An open question is whether subjective time is a unitary
phenomenon, or instead whether it is underpinned by
separate neural mechanisms that usually work in concert
but can be dissociated under the right circumstances. In
other words, when one temporal judgment changes,do
the others necessarily follow suit? We give three
examples that indicate the answer is ‘No’." [emphasis added]



The three examples he is referring to are experiments that I based my definition on in regards to the description of a second space-time dimension. I encourage voters to check for themselves.



D. "Pro cannot say that their personal creator god maintained their values from the beginning. The only value shown to be maintained is the spatial variability of the fine-structure constant, no other variability, and no other constants."


In regards to the usage of my sources in this debate, this is the only careless mistake I made. He is , for the most part, correct here. I have another source that would provide support for this claim, but since its in a book, it most likely has not been peer-reviewed and I can't read the exact contents of it without buying the book. Nevertheless, I am starting to realize now that referencing this empirical finding was not needed to support my hypothesis because its already well accepted that the fine-tuning constants came into being almost the same moment the universe came into being, which I was trying to establish. This leads me to another objection CON made regarding the fine-tuned constants.


E. "Pro asserts that the values were chosen, but in no way attempts to explain how this is the case beyond his assertion.
Pro has given no reason to think that the right values could only occur if they were chosen that way."



Again, CON continues to miss the arguments I established already in round 2, but I will elaborate. The reason why I suggested that the values were chosen is because they essentially came into being the same moment the universe came into being and ,thus, had to be created by the same causal entity. Secondly, we know through math that most of the values in the parameters will not allow life to exist if these values were smaller or larger. This means that we don't need to know what values don't allow life, just the relevant values of the constants that do produce a life permitting universe. In round 2, I showed how the cosmological constant was a great example of why the right values could only have occurred if they were chosen that way by the entity in question.



F. "Birdsong (birds' language) is linguistically very similar to human language phonologically and syntactically, but that doesn't mean that human intelligence is being used to organize bird sounds in a particular order"



CON is confusing analog information (syntax) with digital information (semantics). Just because there is a close relationship between digital and analog information does not necessarily mean that physico-chemical laws of nature produce digital information. This is because the forces of chemical necessity (analog information) produce redundant order or rule-generated repetition that reduces the capacity to convey specified information [7].

For instance, random mixtures of polymers or granite are examples of complex structures generated, but they are not specified. Crystals are typically understood as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules held together in a uniform way. However, neither crystals nor polymer mixtures qualify as living organisms because they do not possess both information forms simultaneously found in DNA, leading to “specified complexity”[8].

Crick (1958), who was one of the first to elucidate the information properties of the DNA molecule, explained this meaning of information in biological terms in 1958 as “the speci@257;cation of the amino acid sequence in protein. ... the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein.” [9] Shortly thereafter, leading molecular biologists de@257;ned biological information to incorporate this notion of speci@257;city of function and complexity [10].



G. "Pro clearly admits here that his omnibenevolent creator not only has created an evil in viruses, but that this evil is necessary"


Remember, the subject matter of this debate is not philosophy or theology but science. In round 3, I provided a scientific definition of what I mean by an "evil design", which involves designs that ONLY bring harm and degeneration upon that organism or to other organisms. The examples I provided that were considered to be evil actually yielded an important function that benefitted popluations of organisms. Thus, I fail to see how CON refuted my hypothesis.



H. "Why can't an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god create this beautiful universe without evil, innocent death, necessary evils, or necessary population control via harmful evil viruses?"


I answered this already. Read the last part of Round 3 again.



In the next round, I will finish off any leftover objections from CON and provide my debate conclusions.



[7] Polanyi M. Life’s irreducible structure. Science 1968; 160:1308–1312. 320

[8] Orgel L. The Origins of Life. 1980. p. 189. 321

[9] Crick J. “On Protein Synthesis,” Symposium for the Society of Experimental Biology 1958; 12, 138–63 322

[10] Sarkar S. Biological information: a skeptical look at some central dogmas of molecular biology. In: S. Sarkar, 323

ed.: The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives. 1996. p. 187–231. Dordrecht: Kluwer 324

Academic Publishers.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for your 4th round Pro.
Pro attempted to defend creation without time by describing simultaneity.
But a simultaneity does not a creation make.
No creation, no creator, no god in this debate.

*The Passing of Time*

As Pro has already described the origin of the universe, with the current accepted idea of cosmic inflation, Pro necessarily affirms that space itself had an origin and that this origin is also the origin of the universe.
I agree.

Pro has also already described that the origin of the universe is quantum mechanical.
I completely agree.

Pro then also accepts the current understanding that space and time are inter-contingent.
Without time, there is no space, and without space, there is no time.
In fact, that's why they put space and time on a continuum, called spacetime.

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."
http://www.fourmilab.ch...

Therefore Pro accepts that whence there was no space, there was no time, and, this is crucial here, Pro must also accept that whence there was no remaining space, there was no remaining time.

So when there was no remaining time, there was no passage of time.
This is bad news for a temporal process like creation.

Without remaining spacetime and the passage thereof, a temporal process, which creation necessarily is, is not possible.
Therefore the quantum conditions that are responsible for the origin of the universe cannot be described as creation, because of the temporal inadequacies of such a description.

This also negates that there was a creator, quantum or otherwise.


Pro mentions:
"I am afraid CON could not be more wrong here. He is referring to a classical understanding of cause and effect relations within physics called "principle of locality"

My response:
Nope.
I'm referring to the understanding of creation, not cause and effect, so we can dismiss your "principle of locality" irrelevance here.
Pro cannot reduce my "no space, no time, no passing of time, no temporal processes, no creation of the universe argument" to "classical physics."
Instead, Pro should focus on what creation means in this debate, given my definition and explanation of the concept in the rounds prior.


Pro continues:
"you cannot apply our understanding of classical physics at the very first moment of the big bang...it requires a quantum mechanical description to apply it at that point in time."

My response:
By Pro admitting here that that initial singularity is in fact a *point* in time and NOT a series of points in time, Pro admits that there was no series of points in time prior to this point, thus there was no temporal processes, thus this quantum point in time had no passage of time for creation.


Pro concludes:
"the best way to describe the first moment of the big bang is to say that the same moment in which the universe first came into being was the same moment it was caused or created by an immaterial spaceless timeless cause."

My response:
The first moment of the big bang WAS THE FIRST MOMENT.
Therefore asserting that some cause used a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring the universe into existence (creation), ignores that time itself originated with the space that originated with the universe.
Using the word "created" ignores the temporal inadequacies of the lack of the passage of time.


Pro states:
"every material effect must have an adequate antecedent OR simultaneous cause"

My response:
So an antecedent would require the passage of time, because in order for something to antecede, there needs to be precedence to allow for before and after; no time, no precedence.

A simultaneous cause wouldn't be creation, because there's no difference between creator and created product.
When you have two things that are simultaneously caused, which one is the creator?

Seriously, Pro, if you consider the beginning of the universe to be a quantum origin and you're arguing that it was simultaneously caused, then how do you discern between creator and created product without the passage of time?

If your creator didn't precede the universe AND your creator was simultaneously caused with the universe, then how do you know the universe didn't create your god?
If there's no precedence without the passage of time, how do you know the creator and the created product?


*The Mind*

I had mentioned that the mind is contingent on the brain and Pro said, "I would agree with just about everything CON suggested here."

Fantastic.

But then Pro mentions that the mind is in a different dimension because:
"our ability to apply physical manifestations of digital information or abstract objects ,not contingent upon nature, into the material world."

My response:
I fail to see any abstract objects not contingent on a brain to conjure them up.
Seriously.
Pro has not shown that abstract constructs are independent of brains or even neuronal substrates.
Therefore the whole "digital/analog = abstract/concrete" argument really amounts to the idea that both analog and digital are in effect material because they both are contingent on at least electromagnetic radiation or charged particles.


*Time Dimensions*

I want readers to understand that string theory is the current scientific discipline that espouses this idea of "higher dimensions."
Directly from a leading physicist in this particular field, a supporter of string theory, Michio Kaku,
"Do higher dimensions exist?...we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions."
http://mkaku.org...

There is no experimental evidence for higher dimensions, so Pro can try to claim that the mind somehow exists in dimensions that haven't been demonstrated by the very science that proposes their existence, it just won't make any sense.

I also maintain that none of the sources that Pro provided mentioned anything about a second spacetime dimension...none.
Pro just made all of that second time dimension stuff up.


Pro tries to provide a quote from his source that shows a second time dimension.
"An open question is whether subjective time is a unitary phenomenon, or instead whether it is underpinned by separate neural mechanisms that usually work in concert but can be dissociated under the right circumstances."

My response:
Did you see a mention of another time dimension?
Me neither.
This quote reaffirms what I had said earlier, that the study had shown that people's time perceptions tended to be inaccurate with different stimuli.
"Subjective time" is how the researchers referred to participants perceiving time differently than it was objectively occurring.
That's all it showed...no time dimensions mentioned at all.
Just read the study yourself.
Boo Pro.


*Values of the Universe*

Pro says:
"The reason why I suggested that the values were chosen is because they essentially came into being the same moment the universe came into being and ,thus, had to be created by the same causal entity."

My response:
Pro is necessarily advocating for a precedence to the universe with this attempt to justify "chosen" values for laws of the universe.
Somehow, Pro's god was able to choose things when there was no time or the passage thereof.
In fact, Pro has already said that god was a simultaneous creator of the universe, so when in this simultaneity did god choose the values?
How do we know the universe didn't choose the values for god; it could be that the universe simultaneously created god.


*Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence*

Ok Pro answer these:

1. Does your god have the power to create our universe without evil?
2. Since there's evil, did god choose to create our universe with evil?
3. Since god supposedly created everything, did he also create evil?

If the answer is yes to all 3 of these questions your god is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent.
If the answer is no to all 3 of these questions your god is not omnipotent, but could still be omnibenevolent.
If your answers are inconsistent, you're lying.

I argue that since Pro has already agreed that there are evils, and that god created and maintains the universe, then Pro admits that his god created evils and even maintains their existence.
Debate Round No. 4
kenballer

Pro

1. "Seriously, Pro, if you consider the beginning of the universe to be a quantum origin and you're arguing that it was simultaneously caused, then how do you discern between creator and created product without the passage of time?"


Simple, I provided support in round 2 for a immaterial mind that can create material effects within classical physics (i.e. created product) while "simulataneously" operating in a immaterial spaceless timeless dimension (i.e. creator). For example, the Kochen-Specker thereom experiment demonstrated that the outcome of observed reality depends on the measurements at the time and cannot be predicted or determined prior to that [1]. In other words, what we percieve as reality now depends on our earlier decision of what to measure.

Furthermore, quantum physics proves that prior to observation or measurement objects do not have defined properties or location. Instead, the act of a conscious observer creates the existence of the physical objects and the properties they entail instantly. The first moment of the big bang and quantum fluctuations of particles that emerge out of a quantum mechanical universal wave-function are great examples of what I am talking about.

Therefore, when Con suggested that the mind is in "Time", he is mistaken. It is the mind's effects that are within "Time" and can be measured, but the conscious mind itself exist in a different or second space-time dimension. For Con to suggest otherwise, he would need to provide empirical support within neuroscience showing how there is an area within the brain that causes a person to make decisions with the usage of electrical stimulation.

Nevertheless, CON suggested that I have not met my BOP in showing the existence of a second space-time dimension and/or digital information, which is needed to prove that the mind has causal power. This leads me to the next thing he pointed out....



2. "Do higher dimensions exist?...we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions."


Con misunderstands this quote from Michio Kaku. He is referring to the addition of (materialistic) spatial dimensions without adding time dimensions. My hypothesis adds one time dimension and one space dimension in which they are both immaterial. More importantly, unlike CON, I actually contacted Itzhak Bars, the physicist who espouses the two time physics model, through email. I will let him tell you what's up:


Kenballer

"Hello, my name is Ken. I just want to say that I am strong supporter and big fan of your 2T physics model, which includes a total of six dimensions. I have very important questions to ask you about your model. Would you say that your model is truly a theory of everything and another candidate among others like string theory that seeks to unify all the forces making it the final theory?


If you say yes, then I am confused as to why it is not even on the table with theories of everything or spoke of among physicists in big speaking engagements or in the press. In fact, Many physicists even claim that string theory is the only candid despite having many problems. Lastly, has any of your predictions from your model been tested or confirmed yet?

I will be honored if you can respond to my questions."


Itzhak Bars


"......2T-physics is a new framework, beyond string theory, that does aim to reach the unifying theory through deeper and more fundamental symmetry principles that are absent in 1T-physics (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 3+1, string theory in 9+1 , M-theory in 10+1). The symmetry demands the extra two dimensions (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 4+2, string theory in 10+2 , M-theory in 11+2).

The 2T-framework is still under development. At this stage 2T-physics does include successfully classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics. In particular the Standard Model and Gravity in 4+2 dimensions are in place and producing results. In that sense 2T-physics already covers all the physics we know at all levels of distance or energy. So it is a correct description of nature as we know it. 2T-physics has not yet dealt with gravity in the context of quantum mechanics. I am also a string theorist. The 2T version of string theory or M-theory is only partially developed. I refrain from speculation any further.

In the meantime, it has been demonstrated that 2T-physics goes well beyond 1T-physics in unifying physical systems and making testable predictions that 1T-physics gives no clues about. This includes everyday classical and quantum physics (see examples of dualities and hidden symmetries in my papers and lectures), as well as the physics of the large and small systems, including some aspects of physics at frontiers such as M-theory. For example, in cosmology the 2T approach has produced new understanding of the behavior of the universe at the time of the big bang, including new phenomena, that no other approach managed to understand before. I have followers and collaborators among leading cosmologists that work with me on this topic. So 2T-physics is demonstrably a larger unifying framework, and I believe it is needed to find the truly unified theory.

I do speak about 2T-physics in international conferences or workshops several times every year. There are no objections from my colleagues to 2T-physics (e.g. no such papers exist) and in private I get encouragement from leading physicists........."


** Commentary **

Let me be clear, this debate is NOT about me scientifically proving God exists where there would be articles in science espousing a universal mind creating and controlling everything. However, confirmation of Itzhak Bars model is the closeist at doing so because it proves that there is a second space-time dimension, and it provides support for the well accepted "holographic principle" model, which suggests that our 3 dimensional universe emerges from digital information processes. In round 2, I provided everyone with two sources that refer to his work. Here are quotes from those papers that support my contentions:

"Additional data related to the predictions, that provides information about the properties of the extra 1-space and extra 1-time dimensions, can be gathered by observers stuck in 3+1 dimensions. This is the probe for investigating indirectly the extra 1+1 dimensions which are neither small nor hidden." [2] (emphasis added)

"This suggests that, as a general phenomenon, there are hidden relations and hidden symmetries that conventional 1T-physics does not capture, implying the existence of a more unified formulation of physics that naturally supplies the hidden information. In fact, we show that 2T-physics in (d+2)-dimensions is the generator of these dualities in 1T-physics in d-dimensions by providing a holographic perspective that unifies all the dual 1T systems into one." [3] (emphasis added)


Lastly, the only difference between what Itzhak Bars espouses and myself is that he has not been made aware of consciousness being a valid alternative to string theory in regards to a quantum theory of gravity. As he alluded to in the email, this is why he thinks his model is incomplete because he did not include string theory, which is the only known or accepted quantum gravity theory among physcists. However, I contend that his model is complete and I explained why within this debate.


3. "I argue that since Pro has already agreed that there are evils, and that god created and maintains the universe, then Pro admits that his god created evils and even maintains their existence."


Wrong. I only agreed that God created and maintains certain designs, which display the "appearance" of evil. I have already explained what I meant by this in previous rounds. I also want to point out that I demonstrated in round 3 how the similarities between biological and artificial designs were more than just analogous or metaphorical but literal. For example, I cited an experiment where researchers took all the information from a published book and inserted it into the DNA molecule. As a result, they created a biotech version of an e-reader, with the highest storage capacity to date [4].


Debate Conclusions


Here is why I won this debate. Whether Con accepts it or not, I provided evidence for a second space-time dimension, which contains abstract objects or digital information. This meant that I was able to show how the mind not only exist in a different dimension but does have some causal influence that is independent from the brain. Therefore, the burden is on Con to show evidence that the brain causes decisions, but, as I said before, existing experiments will not make him successful.
Secondly, Con's primary case against my hypothesis relied on the premise that there could not be an independent mind that created the universe if there is no time nor space before the big bang. Since I provided existing evidence of causes, such as us, that can create matter/energy without being made up of matter and energy, his entire case is essentially refuted. Lastly, since this debate is not about providing scientific evidence that proves God exists but justifies belief in God, all the evidence combined should easily justify belief in God.


For these reasons, I urge voters to Vote Pro.


[1] Radek Lapkiewicz, Peizhe Li, Christoph Schaeff, Nathan K. Langford, Sven Ramelow, Marcin Wieniak, Anton Zeilinger. Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system. Nature, 2011; 474 (7352)
https://www.newscientist.com...

[2] Itzhak Bars, Gauge Symmetry in Phase Space, Consequences for Physics and Spacetime, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 5235-5252.

[3] Ignacio J. Araya, Itzhak Bars. Generalized Dualities in 1T-Physics as Holographic Predictions from 2T-Physics. arXiv:1311.4205v2

[4] Church, G. M., Gao, Y. & Kosuri, S. (2012). Next-generation digital information storage in DNA. Science 337, 6102.

MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro.
Congratulations to anyone who actually read this entire debate.
The vote on this debate is clear in my opinion, and here's why:

*Creation*

There were no definitions for the action that creators necessarily commit other than the one that I provided earlier in the debate.

Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Pro never contested this definition, and Pro's burden was to show, by the debate's definition, a personal cause who is the creator of the universe.

A voter then, must accept my definition of creation and *this* definition should be considered when determining if there can be creation without time, when there was no universe, which Pro agrees was a singularity with an origin.

Pro also only bothered to attack cause and effect, by arguing simultaneity, and Pro left creation alone.
By Pro's neglect of and inadequate response to my point on creation, one must conclude that creation is in fact temporal (time-based) and that Pro is necessarily saying that this time based process occurred when there was no time.

No universe, no time, no creation, no creator, no god, and science justifies a belief in time being a property of the universe, not a means to bring the universe about.


*Spaceless and Timeless*

Pro managed to get an e-mail from Itzhak Bars, and if this is for real, I gotta give mad props to Pro for going that deep for a debate...nice work.

However, I'm afraid that Itzhak Bars's e-mail necessarily negates Pro's god's spaceless and timeless property required by Pro's own definition of god.

"The symmetry demands the extra two dimensions..." -Itzhak Bars

If Pro is saying that the mind, Pro's god, exists in these extra space and time dimensions demanded by the 2T framework, then Pro necessarily admits that the mind, his god, is not spaceless or timeless; Pro is claiming that his god exists in some space and some time dimension which, by definition, is not spaceless or timeless.

Thanks Itzhak.


*Final Responses*

Pro claims:
"Here is why I won this debate. Whether Con accepts it or not, I provided evidence for a second space-time dimension."

My response:
Well, you didn't, you provided an e-mail from Itzhak Bars who said "The 2T-framework is still under development...I refrain from speculation any further...A lot more work awaits to be done in this direction to reveal the hidden dimensions in various 1T systems, including in the field theory formalism."

But let's just say that you did prove the 2nd time dimension, and that the mind, your god is there.
Well, then your god isn't timeless or spaceless; it's just in a different space/time dimension.
People should just vote right there.


Pro continues:
"I was able to show how the mind not only exist in a different dimension but does have some causal influence that is independent from the brain."

My response:
Along with not showing the mind to be separate from the brain, Pro agreed with me that the mind is contingent on the brain.
Minds are contingent on the brain or other neuronal substrates, and Pro did nothing to show otherwise.
But if Pro did show that the mind was in a different dimension, did Pro show that this dimension was spaceless or timeless?
No.
Pro quoted physicists who call it another time dimension which is not timeless.
Pro, you're in a double bind here.


Pro adds:
"Since I provided existing evidence of causes, such as us, that can create matter/energy without being made up of matter and energy, his entire case is essentially refuted."

My response:
Who of us is not made up of matter and energy?
You just said causes such as us without being made of matter and energy.
We're completely made of matter and energy!
Also causes are not creations, check the uncontested definitions for creation in this here debate.


*Conclusion*

Pro never addressed temporal creation, and asserted cause and effect irrelevance.
Pro never addressed god being able to create a universe without evil or his neglect to do so.
Pro never addressed how the mind exists in another spacetime dimension yet remains spaceless or timeless.

This debate was long and frustrating, because I had to walk the fine line of critiquing Pro's obvious misinterpretations of scientific work and refuting the central resolution without excessively covering my bases and turning this into a scientific research flex off.

To be honest, I'm not convinced by Pro's attempt to explain god into existence by stretching science's understanding to retrofit a creator.
Science indicates the universe originated at spacetime's origination; spacetime did not precede our universe, and Pro's sources agree.
Debate Round No. 5
80 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
MagicAintReal
Ugh voters like you are the worst
Posted by Outplayz 8 months ago
Outplayz
Don't misquote me:

"Also, seeking out a source and having the person say, "The symmetry demands the extra two dimensions" perfectly summed up pro"s arguments about the 2-D time dimensions, which earlier on, con was refuting that it isn"t true by attacking pro"s "sources."'
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
MagicAintReal
Here's what the RFD said after 2 removals.
"I also gave pro source points bc he did a *good job* throughout the debate in finding sources that *linked to his arguments*. I think he did this *artistically* and ended it with a *bang*... seeking out a source *perfectly summed up* pro"s arguments... it appears pro did a good job by *going straight to the source*"

These are substantial?
Got it!
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
Magic, the debater gave his sources without links, but they are still sources and a voter can still vote on them if they provide reason enough to do so. You might disagree that he met that standard for reasoning, but he explained his decision in some detail, and compared sources from both sides. That meets the basic standard.

You may not think I'm being consistent, and you're welcome to believe that, but I'm doing my best here to go by the same standards we've used on every debate. My perception is that the voter did quite a bit to justify his decision, and I don't think you can treat Pro's arguments as not having sources when they're clearly there. People use published sources on this site all the time, and voters are allowed to and often do consider them in their analysis. I don't see that as giving "the mods a middle finger with the most egregious dishonesty". Again, you're welcome to disagree.
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
MagicAintReal
Whiteflame, every single source given by Pro is inaccessible, and, the only link the voter could really asses Pro on were the links that I provided that Pro failed to do.

Upset, because you're not being consistent in your removal.
The voter here basically just gave the mods a middle finger with the most egregious dishonesty and you were all like, yeah, let me take it...mmm giving source points to a side without sources...adequate!
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
...Wow, is this really why you"re so upset?

Look back a couple of pages in the comments. He posted several comments explaining his decision. Those comments remained a part of his decision when he posted another vote - he even references them in the RFD. They are a part of what I assessed for his RFD. It was not a single sentence, it was not inconsequential.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
That comment you're referencing was from the RFD YOU removed, and all it said was, "Pro sources were a bang!" or something equally stupid.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
Magic, do you really want me to go back into the comments and quote for you precisely where he mentioned Pro's sources? I can do that, but I think you're just as capable. They did apply their own interpretation, but that wasn't the sole means by which they assessed Con's sources. If you want to get into a very specific assessment of this RFD, I'm not doing it in the comments of this debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
Whiteflame from a different debate, but same RFD as Outplayz's RFD.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Voters are required to assess the debate as it is presented. They are allowed to supplement that assessment with some deeper dives into the source materials given in the debate, but there must be some assessment based on how they"re actually used. (2) The voter is required to specifically assess sources given by both sides. Establishing who has the burden of proof is not sufficient reason to solely assess the sources of a single side.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT?
So why wasn't this applied to the god-awful RFD in this debate?

"sources: Con uses a source of higher dimensions that says experimentally higher dimensions aren't shown, however, the rest of the source shows how higher dimensions are theoretically shown to be possible. This works against con for the topic of this debate is evidence of a god, and that would work as evidence. His sources on time fall short for the reason i mentioned pro wasn't debating that there is "no" time (the debate's definition) but that time is different. Lastly, his source on omni-benevolences assumes pro's position that he meant the creator wasn't bc of deaths and or asserting he is "evil". But pro shows that wasn't the case in his meaning, that a benevolent creator isn't evil if it is necessary. Con's sources weren't sufficient to refute "evidence" of a higher being/god and at times, helped pro's arguments of evidence.

NO MENTION OF PRO'S SOURCES and they applied their own interpretation of what affirms the resolution yet you allow it here, but not in the other debate...
Whiteflame...
This isn't looking very consistent.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
MagicAintReal, whatever you think about how we implement moderation policy, our main goal is consistency. We attempt to handle each vote in the same way, at least until policy changes. You don't like this vote, and you've provided plenty of the problems you have with it. I respect that. Nonetheless, as I explained below, all of those problems are not sufficient reason to remove this vote. You can disagree, as you have, with the degree to which the voter violates certain parts of the voting standards, but this is how we've handled similar votes for a long time now. If you want to change that, start a discussion about how votes are handled.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Outplayz 9 months ago
Outplayz
kenballerMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments...and added here to sum up sources: Con uses a source of higher dimensions that says experimentally higher dimensions aren't shown, however, the rest of the source shows how higher dimensions are theoretically shown to be possible. This works against con for the topic of this debate is evidence of a god, and that would work as evidence. His sources on time fall short for the reason i mentioned pro wasn't debating that there is "no" time but that time is different. Lastly, his source on omni-benevolences assumes pro's position that he meant the creator wasn't bc of deaths and or asserting he is "evil". But pro shows that wasn't the case in his meaning, that a benevolent creator isn't evil if it is necessary. Con's sources weren't sufficient to refute "evidence" of a higher being/god and at times, helped pro's arguments of evidence.
Vote Placed by C_e_e 1 year ago
C_e_e
kenballerMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/99907/