It's probable that the God exists
It is probable that the God exists.
I will be Pro.
1st round acceptance:
All other rounds: anything goes
Since they were not supplied by the instigator, I'll provide some relevant definitions in order to crystalize the parameters of the debate.
God : the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Probable : Likely to happen or be the case.
Exist : Have objective reality or being.
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
You can't have a universe without it being created, you can't have spontaneous creation without physical laws, and you can't have physical laws without a universe.
(The Grand Design)
Spontaneous Creation ---->
Physical Laws ---->
Spontaneous Creation ---->
Physical Laws ---->
(Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time)
-If time travel is possible, the tourists from the future would already be here...
-Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am...
Of all the endless possibilities of what God could have chosen to happen, this is the only one that could possibly have ever existed.
(Let There Be Light) -
From no time or space, there was a point, a burst of light(The Big Bang), an expansion, and will be a reversal, ending in a "Big Crunch".
(2 Peter 3:10)
-But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will vanish.
-I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
According to the Hawking model, there was nothing before the big bang, not space, matter, nor even time. If you adhere to this model, and God exists, without time, He needed no beginning.
God would be defined as "one of which nothing greater can exist." This particular being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality if reality(space, time, multiverses, quantum fields, etc) is infinite. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible, one which exists both in the mind and in reality. If this is the model Pro chooses, then he must explain to us how the highest conceivable being cannot exist in a finite set.
If Con says reality is not infinite, then in his mind reality is finite. Meaning, reality is the equivalent of a basketball or a lake that exists in nothing. It has boundries, yet nothing around it. Pro must tell us how this is not "magical thinking" if it is his proposed model.
I have a model, but it's a Creationist model for how either/or can exist.
In computer programming, a loop is a sequence of instructions that is continually repeated until a certain condition is reached. Typically, a certain process is done, such as getting an item of data and changing it, and then some condition is checked such as whether a counter has reached a prescribed number. If it hasn't, the next instruction in the sequence is an instruction to return to the first instruction in the sequence and repeat the sequence. If the condition has been reached, the next instruction "falls through" to the next sequential instruction or branches outside the loop. A loop is a fundamental programming idea that is commonly used in writing programs.
Certain types of infinite loops are ones that lacks any exit routine . The result is that the loop repeats continually until the operating system senses it, some other event occurs as programmed by the loop, thus infinite randomness, and on and on infinitely.
Physicist, James Gates, and his fellow researchers, found within the mathematical equations used to describe the universe.
What they found was computer code.
And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software.
"Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code."
Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Codes are vneeded in the exchange of digital information as they monitor code sent and measure it against what is already known, self adjusting as needed in order to accurately transmit and receive the correct information.
Type I codes are binary self-dual codes which are not doubly even, and every codeword has even Hamming weight.
Type II codes are binary self-dual codes which are doubly even.
Type III codes are ternary self dual codes. Every codeword in a Type III code has Hamming weight divisible by 3.
Type IV codes are self-dual codes over F4. These are even.
Pro has the assertive position, thus carries the Burden of Proof. As such, Con should win Arguments if the resolution is not affirmed. I'm using this round to submit my own case and will address Pro's, next round. This'll give Pro a round to bolster his case/address mine.
Argument from Human Nature
Driven to Seek Explanation
Humans are strongly pattern-seeking, as the recognition of consistency in the world enables us to make predictions and achieve repetitive success in activities, which was especially vital in primitive times (e.g. seasonal patterns) . This is an intrinsic aspect of our cognitive abilities that allow us to successfully navigate the world, which forms a strong type of learning (Associative) which entails conditioning response(s) to stimuli . We are so strongly biased that we routinely see patterns even when they aren't there (i.e. Apophenia) .
The Need for Cognitive Closure describes the general desire for full closure on a subject while expressing aversion towards an ambiguous state . A study suggested that a need for closure may foster closed belief systems because openness to conflicting information might threaten a state of closure. Hence, need for closure and dogmatism appear to be conceptually related . This drive compels one to seek out explanations and we frequently respond to uncertainty by fabricating plausible explanations. What's more, we hold on to these invented explanations as having intrinsic value of their own, and we don't like to let them go .
Forming an Explanation
We have a deep-rooted mindset for cause-and-effect; when coupled with imagination and the strong need for an explanation, we end up accepting irrational answers to avoid having no answer at all. This commonly takes the form of superstition and results in the invention of causal explanations for observed events, which is Magical Thinking . This is plainly obvious in the way people have their lucky hats and believe spilling the salt will being back luck, and is strongly attributable to religious beliefs, such as miracles.
When it comes to evaluation, cognitive theory of decision making supports the hypothesis that there are two independent processes involved in decision making. The first process is based on gut instinct, while the second utilizes logical reasoning to make decisions. A study showed that people who relied more on their intuitive decision-making were more inclined to believe in religion, and those who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers .
Preservation of Explanation
Another common phenomenon, Belief Perseverance, describes the human tendency to retain a belief despite strong evidence to the contrary or when the very basis of it is shown to be unreliable [9,10]. Further, the Primacy Effect reflects the tendency to consider explanations and evidence that are encountered first with greater merit . This is plainly evident in the importance we place in first impressions, which is applicable because children are often subject to religious explanations first, which roots-in this bias.
Humans are social beings and are innately biased towards that which will benefit social cohesiveness. This often entails the setting aside of individual reasoning and adopting the beliefs of the majority, which is a powerful phenomenon, Conformity . A study found that about a third of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority, and only a quarter didn't conform . This is given an obvious error, so it's quite reasonable to assume a much higher rate in terms of belief in God, where there really is no clear evidence to the contrary.
Another potent factor is Authority, which greatly influences the beliefs and actions of individuals and is demonstrated in the famous Milgram Obedience Experiment [14,15]. This indicates that religious individuals who are perceived as authorities, be it parent or pastor, can largely shape the beliefs of others, even if those beliefs are erroneous.
Confirmation Bias is the most prevalent of biases, and reflects a tendency to seek out evidence to affirm currently held beliefs while disregarding evidence to the contrary . This is often used to affirm the existence of God through observations like prayer, while ignoring studies which found that it doesn't work [17,18]. This bias causes one to automatically interpret scripture (especially prophetic) in the most favorable way, as well. Due to character limitation, I can't detail the array of relevant, powerful biases, but a few are: Backfire Effect, Bandwagon Effect, Just-World Bias, and Selective Perception .
The majority of humans believe in God. Countless religious of incredible variance have risen and fallen throughout history, and in primitive times, religion was indistinguishable from mythology , and religion emerged as a formalization of the mythology. The monotheistic notion of Christianity is said to have emerged from a polytheistic ancestry, so this religion has evolved much over time . Currently, there are 19 major religious groups (270 subgroups), and about 34,000 denominations of Christianity, alone . This attests to the great inaccuracy of our ability to perceive the truth of the matter if it is the case that a God actually exist, and the general lack of falsifiability renders attempts to discern who is correct futile. To presume the truth in the existence of some god based on the popularity would be an Appeal to Popularity fallacy , rendering such a conclusion invalid.
This principle states that one shouldn't make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one .
Setting aside numerous other factors (e.g. desire for justice, hypersensitivity to observation, flawed memory/intuition) and given just of few of the strong tendencies towards misunderstanding the world around us, we should utilize Occam's Razor: it's much less presumptuous to hypothesize that the belief in God in the result of our own flawed and biased perceptions and reasoning rather than to add to it the strong assumption that some god actually exists, as well. Until there's direct evidence for a god's existence, it's an assumption. Therefore, the existence of God is improbable, and more likely a manifestation of our psychological nature.
We are so strongly biased that we routinely see patterns even when they aren't there .
So atheists have a strong confirmation bias of things that are not there by statement of Con.
"This drive compels one to seek out explanations and we frequently respond to uncertainty by fabricating plausible explanations. What's more, we hold on to these invented explanations as having intrinsic value of their own, and we don't like to let them go."
Which applies to atheism.
"We have a deep-rooted mindset for cause-and-effect; when coupled with imagination and the strong need for an explanation, we end up accepting irrational answers to avoid having no answer at all."
Which applies to atheism.
"those who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers."
So I have been an atheist and a Theist. I must be an anomaly, thus the only one that can claim no strong confirmation biases or a subject to any bs rules of analytical nature vs religious nature. Thus, my opinion should be of value to anyone with a strong endoctrinated belief system from childhood such as atheism or Christianity. I was born into neither belief system, thus by Con's definition, I have the highest ground on the isdue and am pointing out his own confirmation biases.
This attests to the great inaccuracy of our ability to perceive the truth of the matter if it is the case that a God actually exist.
Yet they all have the same basic construct.
"This attests to the great inaccuracy of our ability to perceive the truth."
So...apply this to atheism.
"It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one."
My model is not simple or nearly the simplest one. I've been in over 50 debates. Check em out.
THE ATHEIST DILEMMA
"Until there's direct evidence for a god's existence, it's an assumption. Therefore, the existence of God is improbable, and more likely a manifestation of our psychological nature."
Not actually. In either a finite reality or an infinite reality we get the highest conceivable or possible being by default of no beginning of history, whether within the construct of the finite or infinite.
If you adhere to a finite model, first you must explain how something can exist inside of nothing, and give examples. Nevertheless, with no beginning to history, God would exist by default.
If you adhere to an infinite model, God exists by default as the highest conceivable being by the very laws of infinite space and time.
Thus, the psychology of the atheist is based on a strong confirmation bias according to Con himself.
Your turn. Get it.
Creation of the Universe
Pro opens with, “You can't have a universe without it being created...”. This is a bare assertion: the Big Bang Theory describes the beginning of the observable universe. What may have occurred prior to this is not observable (it has no observable consequences) and is, thus, not subject to anything more significant than conjecture. The claim that the universe was "created" requires direct evidence or else it can be dismissed as baseless speculation.
Various Quotes and Scriptures
Pro presents several quotes by Stephen Hawking and biblical scripture that are unaccompanied by any explanation whatsoever. Unless Pro explains how they pertain to the debate, they're irrelevant.
The Hawking Model
Pro states, "According to the Hawking model, there was nothing before the big bang, not space, matter, nor even time". To quote from the very same source that Pro cited:
“Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.” 
Further explanation and evidence will be required from Pro in order to justify his statement. Further, Pro must explain how "before the Big Bang" is coherent, because "before" is a time-dependent concept while before Big Bang is asserted to have no time.
Pro presents an argument reminiscent of the ontological argument for God, in which Pro attempts to "define" God into existence. Definitions are invented by humans for the purpose of relating and communicating concepts. To then use a definition to prove some claim about reality is nonsensical, rendering this argument nothing more than imaginative, vacuous, philosophical rhetoric.
Finite and Infinite Reality
Pro conflates an additional issue with the ontological argument and readdresses this again at the end of Round 3. Pro presents a dilemma in which whether reality is finite or infinite, some "highest conceivable being" must exist. The term "(in)finite reality" doesn't make sense and Pro will need to clarify: what does this mean, exactly? Does "reality" pertain to space? Time? Matter?
Regarding "finite reality" and in consideration of Pro's hypothetical examples regarding "something existing inside of nothing", if Pro refer to this nothing as a "true" nothing, then these examples are entirely incoherent because by saying "...inside of nothing", that is inferring that "nothing" at least has spatial existence, which contradicts the concept.
In regard to an "infinite reality", Pro must explain how this leads to the necessary existence of some "highest conceivable being by default".
Pro seems to be alluding to a model of reality with the basis of Superstring Theory, which is completely unexplained in terms, and is not yet been connected to the resolution of the debate. In any case, Superstring Theory faces a number of criticisms such as the lack of falsifiability, making it dangerous close to becoming a pseudoscience (if it isn't already). The cornerstone of science is falsifiability, and all scientific models must be testable and falsifiable. In other words even the best and most elegant scientific models must be subject to being proven wrong by experimental or observational data . Due to this, any argumentation that is based on this Theory inherits the logical fallacy known as Unfalsifiability, which is confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons [*].
Defense of the Argument from Human Nature
Pro offers a series of short responses to a few choice sentences from the argument, which have no impact on its veracity or conclusion. At the end of Round 3, Pro presents something that resembles portions of his own case, so this was included in the rebuttal, above.
The initial response from Pro appears to be a conclusion, "So atheists have a strong confirmation bias of things that are not there by statement of Con.", that was drawn from a specific sentence in the argument, "We are so strongly biased that we routinely see patterns even when they aren't there". There is no logical connection between the original sentence and Pro's conclusion and no explanation at all is provided. This renders the conclusion a Non Sequitur, which is a logical fallacy that means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises [*]. Pro must explain how (a) this conclusion logically follows and (b) how it is relevant to the argument's conclusion.
Three of these responses state, 'this applies to atheism, too', which does nothing to address the truth of the statement, itself. This constitutes a logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque, which is effectively nothing more than saying, "Oh, yeah? Well, you too!", which doesn't serve to oppose the actual argument whatsoever [*]. In response to these statements, all humans are susceptible to the cited phenomena to varying degrees, and no specific group of people was being targeted. If Pro believes these statements possess merit, then they must be elaborated.
In response to a sentence in the argument that points to a tendency for more analytical-minded people to be irreligious, Pro describes himself as an "anomaly" and attempts to establish himself as an authority on the matter. This indicates that Pro did not understand that this only reflect a trend (like all cited psychological phenomenon) and is not any kind of rule. Pro's efforts here are misguided and unfounded.
The closest Pro comes to providing some form of rebuttal is in the one-word statement, “Yet they all have the same basic construct", in response to a statement about our inability to perceived the truth if God actually exists. To this, I respond by saying that while there is a tremendous degree of variance in the details surrounding religious beliefs about God (or gods), the concepts tend towards having a human-like basis in personality and other aspects of their being. This commonality is explained by the psychological phenomenon of Anthropomorphism, which is the ubiquitous tendency to interpret non-human things and events in terms of human characteristics. People in all cultures have attributed human characteristics to deities, often including jealousy, pride, and love. Even deities with an animal form, or with no physical form at all, are thought to understand prayer and other symbolic communication. 
Lastly, Pro responds to Occam's Razor by emphasizing the complexity of his "model". Here, Pro has somewhat shot himself in the foot: Pro misunderstood that it states that the simpler model is to be chosen as more likely, not the more complicated one! To reiterate, in terms of Occam's Razor, simplicity/complexity refers to the level of unnecessary assumptions that are added to the model or explanation.
Pro seems to be aiming attacks at atheism as if it were a belief system, which is is false. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in the existence of any god(s). That's literally the only critereon for qualifying as an atheist, which isn't even a belief, in of and itself. Certainly, there are those few atheist who posit the assertion that no gods exist at all, but that is not a necessary component to atheism. Even if it was, a single belief can hardly be called a "belief system", so neither atheism nor theism would be one. Belief systems are capture by religions, such as Chistianity, and religions can even be atheistic, like some sects of Buhdism .
[*] Logical Fallacies: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
"the Big Bang Theory describes the beginning of the observable universe. What may have occurred prior to this is not observable."
Giving us without any other arguments a 50/50 chance for Creationism or Atheism being correct.
"Further explanation and evidence will be required from Pro in order to justify his statement. Further, Pro must explain how "before the Big Bang" is coherent, because "before" is a time-dependent concept while before Big Bang is asserted to have no time."
"Before is not time dependent. It is history dependent. History and time are not the same thing. Time in a space-time model, such as Miskowski Space, is of a fabric. History is simply what has happened before. If you say there was nothing literally, not time, space...nothing, then the beginning of reality popping into existance with no "before history" is belief in magic.
If you believe history is infinite you have a regress of infinite causality. What happened before that? What happened before that? Infinitely. It's like saying everyone has a mom, but there was no first mother.
-An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and infinity.
What physical evidence do we have?
"The contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates, e.g. those given by the Drake equation, for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.
By probability alone just our piece of the galaxy should be teaming with life. We've observed no one, anywhere. This is a physical, observable proof of purpose on Earth. Show us some aliens Con.
It's a philosophical argument because it makes sense. If infinite reality exists, the greatest possible that it can manifest must exist in a finite set. It's basic logic of mathematics.
-Gaunilo of Marmoutiers rebuked by suggesting that the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything.
Exactly...In a finite set, all things possible must exist and infinitely. In a finite set there are infinite you's because history is infinite. There never was a first you. If reality is infinite as well, then there was no first you and are infinite you's all spread throughout infinite reality and history.
"Pro's efforts here are misguided and unfounded."
This is an example of Conusing strong confirmation bias to see only what Con needs to see to conform to his "simpler explanation" per Occam's Razor. Is "nothing done it" the simpler answer or "Someone done it" the simpler answer?
If you looked at a car, is the simplest answer "nuttin done it" or "someone made it"? The human body is by far more complex than the car...
"Lastly, Pro responds to Occam's Razor by emphasizing the complexity of his "model". Here, Pro has somewhat shot himself in the foot:"
Not really. My model is complex. Mine is a combination of common sense, philosophy, mathematics, biology, physics, and prophecy. The basic concept of a creator is very simple compared to the blind assertion that "nuttin done it". "Nuttin done it" is the most complex explanation to explain away of all, and needing the most unnecessary assumptions.
"Pro seems to be aiming attacks at atheism as if it were a belief system, which is is false."
Not true. All 7 billion humans on Earth have beliefs constructing an overall belief. Atheism is a belief system consisting of many beliefs such as Darwinian evolution theory, quantum fields, "no time pre big bang", any concept of pre big bang other than God, multiverse theory, confirmation biases, etc.
If you belief in 3 unproven theories to construct a "lack of belief" that in itself is a constructed belief because the 3 minor beliefs are unproveable. It's faith.
Otherwise I could say "I have a lack of belief that there is no God." It's nonsensical. It's just twisted words.
(Acts 2:17)(Joel 2:28)
"'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams."
And Muslims are seeing Jesus in dreams in mass and millions are converting, and...in some of the most anti-Christian nations on Earth.
Even Atheists are seeing Him.
Big Bang Theory
"which essentially boils down to whether God exist or not. This is an unfounded conclusion because there is no basis from which to calculate a probability."
Sure there is. 1 of 2 propositions must be true. Thus...a 50/50 chance either way of "no creator(s)" or "creators(s)".
"If you say there was nothing literally...", which isn't relevant because I don't say that."
Then Con has the problem of a regress of infinite causality.
1)If Con claims time did not exist, then Con must show us what burped time into existance. If and when Con presents us a "cause" of time, Con must present us the cause of the cause of time. And so on...infinitely. If time can jump into existance, it has jumped into existance before, and there has never been a first time that time jumped into existance and infinitely.
2)Con must explain to us how time can "still pause", then leap back into motion and infinitely. Con must also explain to us the logic behind believing there was never a first thing or a first event.
"This problem exists in all facets of belief, including theism. If a god is claimed to exist without a cause or prior event, then it must be explained..."
God created time, thus is not ruled by it. I need no explanation for the explanation because God would by definition, be the creator of our reality and not subject to science, biology, physics, time, matter, space, etc. It's like a Sim trying to define the creator of Sim City by the construct of said Sim's virtual world.
But Con has the dilemma here. Why? Because Con's answer is void of anyone who created our reality, thus Con must demonstrate an answer for every cause because in our reality everything is given birth to by something else. Everything that moves needs a cause for why it moved in the first place. Even energy whether stored or kinetic, can not do anything on its own without something else.
"It is literally impossible to draw any conclusions about the chances of drawing another blue marble aside from it being possible."
And Con cannot deny that a creator...is possible.
"It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, Intelligent civilizations are too far apart in space or time). Therefore, this bears no argumentative weight whatsoever.
But what it does show is that the manifestation of life is improbable perhaps speculatively, even impossible, if your model is without a creator.
"because impossible events have a 0% chance of occurring and such events could not occur even within such an infinite universe."
If Darwinian means can give us human life, what type of life can it "not create"? And why not?
God, if produced by Darwinian means could simply be the one in infinity that obtained the technology to be God.
"My position is not "nothing done it"; but that the assertion that a god is the reason is unfounded and untenable, and that it should be regarded as improbable."
Is it improbable? We have God from beyond our reality or Darwinian means simply needing to produce someone who so much technology was passed down to, until they had the technology or knowledge to become God. And if this is the model you assess, in infinite space, time, or both, it has happened already.
"we cannot affirm that this "someone" who made it even exists, unlike the human designer of the car."
And why is it illogical to assume the car did not evolve seeing it is a million times less complex than a human being? What if we found it on another planet? Could we still assume it was created if we found no intelligent life on that planet, or is darwinian means a sound argument?
1)God would be the singularity, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
We have objective morality programmed into us and animals do not. Example, I and Con both know that molesting children, having sex with sheep, and walking around nude fondeling ourselves is wrong.
2)It is probable that God exists per laws of infinity, whether by self sufficiency from outside our reality or darwinian means within the construct of infinite history/infinite reality. If there has always been reality, it had no first even and its history is infinite, meaning, it has had infinite chances to produce a being able technologically and/or by the maximum knowledge possible to be God IQ-wise. Within infinity, it has happened already by default within the construct of infinity.
3)God has objective being. Why? In the construct of infinity God exists and never has not existed by definition of infinity. Even if one says time did not exist at times in history, this still does not exclude the fact that with infinite attempts, God manifested by default within the construct of infinity. God being the highest possible existance and intelligence. He would be able to stop time per his own desire in Con's model of "stopping time", as we can assess, seeing that it is admitted as a concept by Con. This would explain why God is self existing and self sufficient in my creationist model, for time never existed until He created it and manifested the concept into our reality. Meaning? Time is a meaningless concept to its creator. It's like the boundries of Sim City. They are meaningful to the laws of reality to Sims, but they are meaningless to their creator.
Big Bang Theory
Pro ignores my explanation and baldly reasserts that the existence of God is 50/50 merely because there are two propositions. This is false because, as I previously explained, there is no data available to analyze to determine any probability. Just because there are two forwarded propositions doesn't mean that they automatically have equal probability of being true, especially when it isn't even known if the existence of a God is possible.
For example, a numbered die in which the only perceived results are odd and even. To assume a 50/50 probability would be to assume that there is an even distribution of odd and even numbers on the die, but in reality, the die could be numbered with all odd numbers, or perhaps with only one even number. Without some information about the die, it is unreasonable to accept any probabilities about an even or odd result.
Time and Events
Pro doesn't seem to understand that I have issued no claims regarding the origin of the universe except that no solid conclusions can be drawn, as previously explained. As such, Pro's two points are irrelevant because the antecedent is not fulfilled ("If Con claims time did not exist...").
Pro claims, "God created time, thus not ruled by it", of which the second part is oddly worded. I don't know who is claiming that God would be "ruled" by time. In any case, "created" describes an action that necessitates change which, in turn, necessitates time. This means that the notion of the creation of time is incoherent, because time would be needed to create time. Pro has not provided any reason as to why God is not subject to the same infinite regress that he claims is a problem for an atheistic universe.
Following this, Pro says, "But Con has the dilemma here. Why? Because Con's answer is void of anyone who created our reality, thus Con must demonstrate an answer for every cause...", which is untrue. Pro is pressing for an explanation from me and that I cannot accommodate, but to rely on my lack of explanation to reinforce his own explanation is to commit the Argument from Ignorance and the Shifting the Burden of Proof logical fallacies: Pro is essentially saying, "you can't prove my claim wrong, therefore it is true" [*]. As I have repeatedly explained, the issues that Pro demands answers for are not observable and are therefore subject to nothing more than conjecture.
Pro states that I cannot deny that a creator is possible. While I cannot say that the existence of God is impossible, I cannot say that it's possible, either. I will agree that it's conceivably possible, but that doesn't mean it's actually possible. Since this debate is in regard to the probability of God's existence, it's unreasonable to consider it probable when it cannot even be determined to be possible.
Pro follows with, "what [the paradox] does show is that the manifestation of life is improbable perhaps speculatively, even impossible, if your model is without a creator", which is a Non Sequitur [*]. The FERMI Paradox is intended to juxtapose the (conjectured) high estimated probability of intelligent life verses the lack of observation of it existing in the universe. Since many explanations are given, including the sheer vastness of the universe, it doesn't follow that a creator is required at all. In any case, Pro's statement includes "improbable" which implies possible: that's sufficient enough.
Pro responds to my explanation that an event that has a 0% of occurring will never occur with two statements. Firstly, human life is nowhere near comparable to God. Secondly, if God is dependent on evolution in order to come into existence, then God cannot be the creator of the universe since evolution entails events that occur within the universe. Therefore, Pro has not explained how it can be determined that the existence of God is even possible.
"Nuttin Done It"
Pro presents another appeal towards the possibility of God's existence with another hypothetical scenario which is dependent on the mechanisms of an already existing universe. If God had arisen through technological means, then God is again dependent on the universe which means that God is not the creator of the universe, as defined. Pro then goes on to attempt to justify the previously submitted car analogy with a series of questions, which I will address:
Q) "And why is it illogical to assume the car did not evolve seeing it is a million times less complex than a human being?"
A) Simply because cars are not biological organisms and do not reproduce. The inheritance of genetics is crucial to evolution.
Q) "What if we found it on another planet? Could we still assume it was created if we found no intelligent life on that planet, or is darwinian means a sound argument?"
A) Then we would probably assume it to be the work of some intelligent being because (a) we know that we build such things and (b) there is no conceivable or known way that a car could come into existence by natural means.
Pro introduces a new argument which appeals to the common sense of morality that humans possess. This argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of issues (taking into account the context) are in dispute to some level. A common sense of morality is the result of human development as social beings; evolutionary accounts of the origins of our capacity to be guided by moral judgments do not require any appeal to the comprehension of moral truths by our hominin ancestors, or even to the existence of such truths. Such stories require only claims about natural selection pressures having favored the development of such a capacity and tendency because of the positive effects such traits had on biological fitness . Thus, the existence of human morality does not necessitate God.
Laws of Infinity
Pro continues with appeals to "infinite reality" implying the existence of God, which is reiterated in the form of a new argument. The same problems are retained:
1) The existence of God has not been shown to be even possible, and an impossible event cannot occur even with infinite chances. Simply because we can conceive of the concept of God doesn't make it possible. To illustrate, it is conceivably possible for a chatty being to exist that could instantly and telepathically communicate with all intelligent life in the universe, so it must be the case, right? And in utilizing Pro's line of reasoning, there must exist infinite of these beings, as well. Well, I don't sense any telepathic messages, so then this is evidently not possible even with the notion on infinity.
2) Pro posits that over the course of infinite time, a God would have necessarily emerged through some processes. However, since these processes exist within the universe, if God is a derivative of those processes, He cannot therefore be the creator of the universe. This includes both the concepts of technological advancement and evolution.
3) Pro's argument contains completely incoherent statements regarding time, "Even if one says time did not exist at times in history...", and posits that I have some model that involves "stopping time", which is false. Pro claims that time is meaningless to its creator (which is incoherent as previously explained) and the only justification that Pro presents is in the form of an analogy to the Sims game. Pro has not supplied anything more than speculation and conjecture to support this.
Pro has dropped all contentions to my Argument from Human Nature. Pro has offered an array of speculative arguments with little or no reasoned or evidenced support. I would like to reiterate that Pro possessed the Burden of Proof in this debate. Thank you Pro, for an interesting and well-mannered debate!
[*] Logical Fallacies: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|