The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific theory
Debate Rounds (5)
Understand that my approach is suppose to be of a scientist using the scientific method not a philosopher like William Lane Craig and other debaters attempt to do, So its a little bit different. I am arguing that the God Hypothesis is a supported scientific theory.
The burden of proof is not all on me though I expect CON to debate and argue under this context. This means unless my opponent can back it up with scientific evidence, NO philosophical arguments or claims. my opponent will also have to try and show how my hypothesis fails to better explain the data compared to the Null hypothesis and how it does not reach the essential criteria of being a theory:
"The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is.......A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)"
The "God Hypothesis" is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in human affairs.
A "scientific explanation" therefore makes an unknown phenomenon comprehensible by relating it to known scientific facts and established theories.
Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under, and so I can adequately respond and address my opponents objections.
I accept this debate.
My opponent bears the majority of the BoP. To fulfill my BoP, all I must do is prove that the God hypothesis does not fit into the criteria of a scientific theory that my opponent provided. For the God hypothesis to be considered a valid scientific theory, it must link to all three standards.
Let the debating begin!
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE
According to the Hartle-Hawking's model, The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly states that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning. What I mean with the universe having a beginning is that one point in the past space, time, and matter/energy came into being. At this point, called the initial singularity, gravity, space-time curvature, density etc. becomes infinite. In a place where the curvature in space-time is infinite or near infinite the laws of physics break down and do not apply. This singularity occurs in black holes and of course, the Big Bang Singularity which created most of the matter in the Universe. The aforementioned first law of thermodynamics does not hold inside a singularity and matter may be created or destroyed. Since matter and energy cannot exist without time, the singularity had to have come into being as well. 
Borde, Guth,Vilenken developed a theorem that proves inflationary models must contain singularities . They also authored the BGV theorem which proves 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 . This theorem does not assume Einsteins equations and holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe.
In addition, Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" with another version of space-time that follow different laws of nature, their theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. This is because the BGV theorem carries only one assumption: If the expansion rate of any universe is greater than 0, the universe began.
THE FINELY-TUNED UNIVERSE
The fundamental laws and constants of nature fall under an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values ,within an infinite set, in which the right value was chosen every time. The slightest change in these values would prevent any kind of life from evolving or existing. Moreover, these perfectly fine-tuned laws and constants came into being right after the big bang, error free and without change throughout this process.
Let me explain what I mean by fine-tuned for life. I am talking about fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life of any kind requires . In other words, If the constants were even altered just a little, You would not get chemistry or matter much less planets and stars that can serve as places where life might evolve. Thus, it does not necessarily have to be human life or life as we know it, but life that we don't know or have not discovered yet.
The phrase "finely tuned" universe is a scientific term scientist use to describe the measurement of the laws and constants. We know that present day particle physics have a whole lot of adjusted parameters like the mass of certain particles along with the strength of certain forces.
How do we know the values are fine-tuned? 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 we don't need to know what values don't produce life, just the relevant values of the constants that do produce a life permitting universe. 
THE GOD HYPOTHESIS
Philosophically, there cannot be an infinite amount of time because Time is by definition a series of "moments". The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments. Thus, if time was eternal in the past, we would have never have arrived at this point, which means there has to be an absolute first cause. Science has essentially stumbled upon the same conclusion.
However, This was not just any bang from a simple beginning, but an expansion of exquisitely arranged magnitude containing galaxies, planets, stars and all other heavenly bodies. The other important aspect of this extraordinary order following the big bang was the creation of our habitable planet Earth. So the question before us is, "If there is even a cause at all, What force is ultimately responsible for all the known phenomena and complexity within the universe?" .
If a great order arose from an expansion, then it should be understood that the intervention of an intelligence was involved in every moment of this expansion. I will call this force the God Hypothesis.
If the God hypothesis is true, then the universe should exhibit divine attributes from a divine intelligence. Moreover, this divine intelligence would have to be similar to human beings but without the limitations the universe possesses. The null hypothesis is that there is no cause for this finley-tuned universe and it just quantum fluctuated out of nothing. However, CON can falsify my hypothesis completely by showing that intelligence arises entirely from natural processes.
THE INDUCTIVE METHOD
Now, the space-time boundary prevents us from observing this entity directly to discover the properties of this cause. However, there are all kinds of things that we can't see or identify but yet we see there effects which led us to potential hypothesises about what they potentially were and how those things manifest using the inductive method of reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is a form of logic that is most characteristic of the scientific method itself, because it moves from the effects to causes which can yield the most likely conclusion for a certain body of data. This inductive method is important for physicist when observing the unobservable nature of subatomic particles or atoms, which can only be detected through indirect manners in order to learn about its nature.
In the next round, I will provide the experiments that prove my hypothesis and the experiments that potentially could falsify it.
 John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" p. 288
 Paul Davies, "How bio-friendly is the universe?" International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115.
OMNI-PRESENT, ETERNAL, AND IMMATERIAL
The Law of Cause and Effect states that for every effect there must be a cause for it. In addition, The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life (life as we know it) arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.
Both these physical laws together indicate that whatever is responsible for this complexity and beginning must have been an eternal life force without Spacial and Temporal properties who consciously designed carbon based life forms along with the universe itself. It must be eternal and therefore changeless without the universe because it created time. Since it also created space, it must transcend space as well and must therefore be immaterial not physical. Lastly, it must be a personal mind since it created human beings with minds. Thus, the properties of this cause would be omni-present, eternal, and immaterial as well as a personal being.
PERSONAL ABOSOLUTE MIND
There are only two possible candidates we are aware of that could possibly have the attributes of an immaterial, omnipresent, eternal and conscious entity: either an abstract object (like numbers) or a human mind (or consciousness).
Abstract objects like numbers or the logical absolutes cannot be found under rocks or grown out of trees nor are they contingent upon human minds. Our minds simply recognize these necessary truths rather than create them. Nevertheless, these kind of abstract objects are still demonstrable because we can create physical manifestations of them in reality like mathematical models and the fine-tuning constants.
Human minds are understood to have agent causality where a cause would be able to bring about new effects at will without any physical dimensions or determining conditions by virtue of its agency. This is called "substance dualism" where there are two fundamental kinds of substance: mental and material. The mental would not have extension in the spacial and temporal constraints with the universe but occupy an independent "realm" of existence distinct from that of the physical world .
However, abstract objects by definition do not stand in casual relationships, and human minds are understood to be intrinsically connected to material substances that naturally possess physical constraints on knowledge and power. Thus, if it cannot be an abstract object or a human mind, then maybe its a combination of the two which would involve an absolute mind where there would not be a brain or body attached.
A personal absolute mind would explain why you can get a temporal effect with a beginning from an eternal cause with unlimited properties. We should find from more empirical observations attributes of an all-knowing and all-powerful being exhibited within the universe.
ALL-POWERFUL AND ALL-KNOWING
The expansion rate of the universe, which is called , will continue to accelerate with increasing speeds forever. This is attributed to the cancellation effect between negative and positive energy ,called the cosmological constant , which happens to be finely tuned to 120 decimal places making it the most well adjusted fine-tuning parameter of them all. Since this constant as well as the rest were present from the very beginning of the universe, it follows logically that the cause for this beginning was responsible for the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant  as well. Thus, the attributes of this cause must be omni-potent
Moreover, If this cause is all-powerful, then it would have to be all-knowing as well to know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, the potential outcome of all future interactions of the particles, and be able to control and anticipate each potential outcome from this future eternal inflation in a inconceivably precise manner. Thus, the attributes of this cause must be omniscient.
All of my predictions about the Divine attributes of this cause is falsifiable and two of them we have already seen the experimental results.
1. Theory of Everything
We have yet to create a theory that explains both Einsteins General Relativity and quantum mechanics (called the Grand Unified Theory or GUT). Once scientists discover a successful Grand Unified Theory, there is still the remote possibility that the fine-tuning constants like the Cosmological constant are mere accidents given other laws of physics.
2. Life from Non-life
The Miller Urey-experiment attempted to prove the origin of life (as we know it) could have occurred on the early earth under natural conditions without intelligence, but the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion .
3. Mind-Body Dualism
Let me provide some context first. Obviously, much of what happens in our minds is influenced by what happens in our bodies and I fully acknowledged this when I mentioned that human minds are intrinsically connected. However, not everything that goes on in our minds is causally determined by what goes on in our bodies. Sometimes what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our minds.
For example, the movements of my fingers as I type this response is ultimately produced by my mental events. Here we have mental-to-physical causation. What explains both this choice of mine and the physical events in my body that are ultimately produced by this choice? The explanation is the purpose that I provide a response to CON's objections. A purposeful explanation is a teleological explanation. In addition, free will is also a mental event. We can make decisions apart from what the brain and body tells us. For example, I have the choice to act upon my emotional desire to have sex after marriage and negate my basic biological desire to have sex before it. Here we have mental versus physical properties. This also would include things like self-identity overtime.
A famous scientist named Wilder Penfield conducted studies that are consistent with my point that choices can be undetermined events with a teleological explanation. In his fascinating book The Mystery of the Mind, he writes the following :
'When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand by applying an electrode to the motor cortex of one hemisphere, I have often asked him about it. Invariably his response was: "I didn't do that. You did". When I caused him to vocalize, he said:" I didn't make that sound". You pulled it out of me. When I caused the record of the stream of consciousness to run again and so presented to him the record of his past experience, he marveled that he should be conscious of the past as well as of the present. He was astonished that it should come back to him so completely, with more detail than he could possibly recall voluntarily. He assumed at once that, somehow, the surgeon was responsible for the phenomenon, but he recognized the details as those of his own past experience.
Penfield goes on to note that, "There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient . . . to decide" . In light of his work as a neuroscientist, Penfield concludes the following: For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier and logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements.'
In the next round, I will show how my hypothesis has more explanatory scope compared to the null hypothesis and better explains the data.
Omni-present, eternal and immaterial
The Law of Cause and Effect may very well mean that for every effect in the universe, there must be a cause, but it does not mean that things outside of the universe have a cause. The properties of something cannot necessarily be used to determine the beginnings of that something.
The Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, in fact it is far from absolute. There is plenty of evidence, including the evidence from the Miller-Urey experiment, which we be discussed a little later. There is more evidence to support that the elements present in the early atmosphere, when charged with electricity (lighting), produced the amino acids that are the building blocks of life.
My opponent provides no evidence to support biogenesis over abiogenesis, which is the origin of life from non living material.
This refutes my opponent's ar gument that there must be a creator with an eternal life force without spatial and temporal properties who consciously designed carbon based life forms along with the universe itself.
Personal Absolute Mind
I would argue that my opponent's arguments under this section are much more philosophical than scientific. The bases of his arguments include mathematical Platonism and ideas from Descartes. Both Plato and Descartes were not scientists. They were philosophers.
Part of the rules for this debate state: "This means unless my opponent can back it up with scientific evidence, NO philosophical arguments or claims."
This works both ways, and so my opponent's philosophical argument should not be counted.
Regardless, this argument alone is not enough to prove God.
All-powerful and all-knowing
"The expansion rate of the universe, which is called , will continue to accelerate with increasing speeds forever."
Not true. Scientists do not know what the universe will do because they do not completely know the nature of dark matter . There are several possibilities. One is that the universe will go on forever. Another is that eventually the universe will collapse back in on itself in the Big Crunch and the Big Bang will be reversed. Others include the Big Freeze, the Big Rip, and the Big Bounce.
This means that the attributes of the cause do not have to be omnipotent.
Therefore, I argue that the cause is not all-powerful or all knowing, and therefore it is not omniscient.
1. Theory of Everything
It is true that there currently no theory of everything, but it is certainly in the works. My opponent states that once scientists discover a successful theory..., thus agknowledging that scientists will one day find a unified theory.
2, Life from Non-life
"The Miller Urey-experiment attempted to prove the origin of life (as we know it) could have occurred on the early earth under natural conditions without intelligence, but the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion."
Another fallacy. In fact, my opponent's source claims that the experiment did show exactly how life could have occurred from non-life. Nowhere does the source state that the experiment provided evidence opposite that. From his source:
"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules" .
3. Mind-Body Dualism
My opponent has argued that there is mind body dualism, but in no way connects this to God.
I have shown that several of my opponent's claims are false, and he has not yet logically connected his claims to the existence of God, and then connected that to the three standards. He still has much work to do.
Nevertheless, let me explain the data based on the results. With a simple thought, this personal absolute mind must have freely created and manifested itself in reality with the intention of having a relationship with its human creation. This would explain why we observe a life-permitting universe with a habitable planet. Drawing from experience, this would be similar to human minds acting as agents and manifesting in the physical world through our bodies. Then, as humans, we have the emotional thought to have offspring and create a suitable house with the intention to also have a relationship with our offspring.
Well first off, Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be or the fine-tuning of the universe since there is no evidence that the fine-tuning laws came into being by chance.
Second, Just because scientists cannot presently find a cause for some quantum events does not mean its evidence that some things don't have to have a cause. There are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum mechanics and some of them are fully deterministic. As physicist David Bohm, has pointed out, there are many "hidden variables" at the quantum level of reality, of which anyone could contain the sufficient reason for a certain quantum event . We cannot make conclusions like this with any kind of confidence especially when we don't fully understand quantum mechanics in the first place since its still in its infancy.
Lastly, Quantum events do not take place in "absolute" nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence. Without this field there would be no quantum events . This is another reason why its not accurate to say that a particular quantum outcome is "uncaused". Therefore, there is no reason to think that not every cause precedes an effect and , as such, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
OMNI-PRESENT, ETERNAL, AND IMMATERIAL
"The Law of Cause and Effect may very well mean that for every effect in the universe, there must be a cause, but it does not mean that things outside of the universe have a cause."
I agree. God would not require a cause himself because the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the Universe.
"The Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, in fact it is far from absolute."
I agree. The Law of Biogenesis as well as every other scientific theory or phyisical law is not absolute. Nothing can be proven without a doubt in science. Also, the law of Biogensis is well established in science, so I don't know what CON is talking about. If he wants to see the experiments that were done by Louis Pasture that provide support for Biogenesis, then he can go read it himself:
PERSONAL ABOSOLUTE MIND
Well first off, Science depends on philosophy, so its impossible to not use some philosophy. Second, I did provide evidence that mathemathetics entities do exist because as I said before we can make physical manifestations of them and why we are able to make conclusions that work in the real world. I don't need to provide a bunch of examples when its pretty obvious. We discover mathematical facts by empirical research, just like facts in any of the other sciences. So we they exist in general, they just don't exist specifically in reality.
ALL-POWERFUL AND ALL-KNOWING
CON is wrong here. The BGV theorem does prove a forever expanding universe called Future-eternal inflation. I provided links already.
Life from Non-life
Well first off, the evidence CON provided was not evidence that life (as we know it) can come from non-living matter. Of course, the meaning of the term "life" is not fully established or defined in science and the experiment did produce amino acids which are one of the three essential components of life. Thus, there could be other types of life forms besides us we don't know we might call "life".
However, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure. In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell. In a summary the famous Urey/Miller origin-of-life experiment, Horgan concluded:
'Miller's results seem to provide stunning evidence that life could arise from what the British chemist J.B.S. Haldane had called the "primordial soup." Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded. It hasn't worked out that way. In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned (1996, p. 138).'
The reasons why creating life in a test tube turned out to be far more difficult than Miller or anyone else expected are numerous and include the fact that scientists now know that the complexity of life is far greater than Miller or anyone else in pre-DNA revolution 1953 ever imagined. Actually life is far more complex and contains far more information than anyone in the 1980s believed possible.
The major problem of Millers experiment is well put by Davies:
"Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don't make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28)."
Therefore, the Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information in the form of DNA.
I did connect this to God already, but perhaps CON will respond to this now. Otherwise, it becomes a concession on his part.
Horgan, John. 1996. The end of science. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Davies, Paul. 1999. Life force. New Scientist. 163(2204): 27-30.
Before I begin my arguments for this round, I would like to point out an overall trend that I see in my opponent's arguments. He has made a number of unwarranted jumps in logic. Throughout this round I will point out examples of this.
First, I do not accept that we have established this personal absolute mind in charge of the universe. Second, I'm not entirely sure what my opponent's point is in this section. He does, however, make a statement with which I must disagree. He says that "This personal absolute mind must have freely created and manifested itself in reality with the intention of having a relationship with its human creation."
There is absolutely no evidence presented on my opponent's part to say that humans are a creation of God. I do not think my opponent wishes to debate the theory of evolution, but this is what it looks like he is doing in contending that humans are a direct creation of God, rather than of a natural, evolutionary process.
There is so much evidence supporting evolution:
And none denying it so far presented in this debate.
So I encourage my opponent to clarify his point.
"Well first off, Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be or the fine-tuning of the universe since there is no evidence that the fine-tuning laws came into being by chance."
Of course Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be: Evolution does this. My opponent has provided no evidence counter to evolution.
"Second, Just because scientists cannot presently find a cause for some quantum events does not mean its evidence that some things don't have to have a cause."
Once again I fail to understand how this applies to the resolution. I hope that I am not the only one experiencing such confusion.
My opponent makes yet another leap in logic: Quantum events don't take place in nothing, therefore we should reject the null hypothesis. What?
Omni-present, eternal, and immaterial
Here my opponent drops the more important part of my argument and uses the less important part as evidence for God. My argument in full was that causality does not apply outside the universe, so the beginning of the universe does not have to have a cause. He uses the first part to see that God does not have to have a cause. As I said previously, he completely dropped my argument concerning that the beginning of the universe does not need a cause, a fairly important point.
"Also, the law of Biogensis is well established in science, so I don't know what CON is talking about. If he wants to see the experiments that were done by Louis Pasture that provide support for Biogenesis, then he can go read it himself."
While the work of Pasture did overrule the original abiogenesis theory, work after his once again supports the theory of abiogenesis . One important experiment that will be discussed later that relates to abiogenesis is, indeed, the Miller-Urey experiment, though it is by no means the only one. I encourage my opponent to look at my source and familiarize himself with the theory.
Personal Absolute Mind
So now we are allowed to use philosophy my opponent argues, because science is based on philosophy. This contradicts his original rules. He justifies his use of philosophic arguments, rather than scientific arguments, by saying that he did provide evidence about math. This is not evidence for his overall claim. This is simply evidence on his example of numbers as abstract concepts. I encourage readers to return to R3 so they can see exactly what I mean. This argument is really purely philosophic and conflicts with the rules of the debate. It should not be valid.
Regardless, in this argument my opponent again makes a number of logic jumps. The biggest logic jump is in assuming that there is a God in the first place. Because I have disproven his claims in the Omni-present etc. section, I have shown that there is no need for a God in the first place.
All-powerful and all-knowing
I admit my mistake in wrongly challenging my opponent's claim that the universe was expanding at a forever increasing rate. I was, in fact, challenging the wrong thing. I should not have challenged the science, the problem with the argument is another illogical jump. In his argument, my opponent went from the universe is expanding really fast to God is omnipotent. Illogical jump. Readers: look back and see for yourselves.
Life from non life
The Miller-Urey experiment did, as my opponent admits, show how the building blocks of life can come from non life. He has retracted his earlier claim that it did not prove this. The problem with the experiment, he claims, is that it did not show how DNA could have formed. The present theory is that these building blocks were put together in a Primordial Soup, and under the right conditions, life formed.
What I have provided is a link to an article on recent research that shows how RNA could have formed from the primordial soup. This is just one example of recent discoveries on this front. It is clear that there is a decent chance that life could have originated from non life.
Mind body Dualism
I stand by my contention that this was never connected to God.
1. There is no evidence that there must be a God.
2. There is no evidence that God is interested in human affairs, as specified in R1.
3. The God hypothesis has not been tied in with the three criteria:
A. There is no way to prove that God does not exist.
B. The God hypothesis has a single foundation: The universe is finely tuned, therefore it must have a creator.
C. There are no experiments that have proved God in the past.
Thus, the God hypothesis is not a valid scientific theory.
When I said that the personal absolute mind created other human minds I was talking about the law of biogenisis and possibly the theory of information. It makes no difference because the mere fact that this being created life in the first place is evidence that this being is interested in human affairs and consicious as well as personal.
Omni-present, eternal, and immaterial
Since CON's assertion was not very clear, Let me try to interpret CON's objection correctly. If CON is trying to say that Cause and effect relations ONLY happen under separate moments in time, then he needs to prove this claim.
If CON is instead saying that we don't have a large sample size of causes without spacial or temporal dimensions, then he is wrong because I pointed that human minds have no Spacial or temporal constraints. This was the whole point of showing the mind-body dualism which was unchallenged by CON.
Personal Absolute Mind
Let me clear up something that I made about this argument. I was not using the existence of abstract objects and human minds as confirmation evidence for my hypothesis. I was trying to falsify it to provide evidence as to why it could not be a human mind or abstract number that created the finely-tuned universe but another entity. Experiments based on falsifying something is another way of providing evidence.
All-powerful and all-knowing
Perhaps, I was trying to not sound too phiolosphical and was not as clear enough in the process. The expansion rate of the universe will continue to accelerate forever. The definition of power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. Since the cosmological constant is a product of fine-tuning, it shows that there's potentially an infinite degree of power or rates of acceleration being exerted to expand the universe. Thus, this attribute is omni-potent
Life from non life
Again, Depending on how you define life apart from us, you could probably say that life possibly could form from non-living matter if CON provided evidence that RNA is self-replicating. However, CON's source did not show evidence that RNA was the actual self-replicating giving rise to DNA and proteins.
In addition, even If CON did provide evidence that RNA came first, it would not provide evidence that carbon based life that contain DNA information. According to information theory, information must come from outside a system and ,thus, you cannot say that our life ,which is presently understood to require RNA, protein, and DNA, can come from non-life. This is more important because my hypothesis depends on the understanding that we as consicious personal human beings were created by another personal conscious being that would be the first cause.
Now, although, I forgot to mention the theory of information and did not specifically explain what I meant by life as we know it. This is not me bringing in new arguments because I mentioned in round three that I am speaking of life as it is presently understood to be carbon based life forms when I mentioned the law of biogensis.
Mind body Dualism
Just in case, CON decides to challenge my claim all of a sudden without me responding, I am going to anticipate it by providing a counterargument:
CON is confusing the concept of the correlation of two events with the concept of the identity of two events. It simply does not follow from the fact that two events are correlated that they are identical. Correlation does not prove causation. There is the fact that movements of bodily limbs like arms and legs are correlated with events in the motor cortex of the brain. No one believes, however, that movements of arms and legs are identical with their causal antecedents in the brain. Upon reflection, it is just as obvious that there is no good reason to believe that psychological events are identical with brain events simply because the two are correlated.
Again, CON must provide evidence that there is a region in the brain that causes these mental events when it comes to intention states and decisions or will power that are not determined by basic biological functions but by outside influences. Otherwise, my argument stands here as well.
I ran out of time. The voters will figure it out. VOTE PRO
Here we are in the final round. I hesitate to say too much as my opponent will not have the chance to refute my arguments.
Regardless, at this point in the debate, the real objective is to be using the standards set up at the beginning of the debate to judge the resolution.
At the end of my R4 argument I reviewed where each standard stood at that time. In that summary, I proved that not only did the God hypothesis fail in one area, it passed none. My opponent completely dropped this assemsement, conceding it therein. In doing so, my opponent basically conceded the debate.
Because of this, I do not need to refute his arguments in this last round, but will do so anyway just to be sure that I have covered all of my bases.
First, however, I would like to make another point very clear. In R4 I stated:
"The biggest logic jump is in assuming that there is a God in the first place. Because I have disproven his claims in the Omni-present etc. section, I have shown that there is no need for a God in the first place."
This contention that there is no need for a God in the first place was dropped. With this in mind, I will refute my opponent's final arguments.
"When I said that the personal absolute mind created other human minds I was talking about the law of biogenisis and possibly the theory of information. It makes no difference because the mere fact that this being created life in the first place is evidence that this being is interested in human affairs and consicious as well as personal."
My opponent dropped my point that the human mind evolved, and was not the result of a divine creator. It is a huge jump to say that God created the first life, therefore he created the human mind and is interested in humans.
Conclusion: Pro's argument is void.
Omni-present, eternal, and immaterial
Since my assertion was confusing to my opponent, I will try to make it as clear as possible for readers and voters.
1. Everything that we can observe in the universe has a cause
This may or may not be true but I will assume that it is.
2. Therefore, this does not apply to things outside the universe as far as we know
3. The laws of the universe do not apply to the way in which the universe began, because at this time there were no laws of the universe.
4. Because causality is a law of the universe, it does not apply to the beginning of the universe.
5. Therefore, the universe did not need a cause.
This brings us back to my point: A God is not required for the universe to begin.
Conclusion: Pro's argument is void.
Personal Absolute Mind
Since the universe didn't need a creator and there is no reason for a God to exist, there is no reason to describe the attributes of God.
Conclusion: Pro's argument is unnecessary.
All-powerful and all knowing
There may be, as my opponent puts it, an infinite degree of power or rates of acceleration being exerted to expand the universe. That does not mean that God is the cause of this expansion.
Conclusion: Pro's argument is unsubstantiated and therefore void.
Life from non life
I am not claiming that today we know exactly how life could have arisen from non life. All I am saying is that just because we can't explain it now does not automatically defer it to God. We can see how the building blocks of life could have formed which may very well lead us to how the first life was formed.
Conclusion: Pro's argument says that if we don't know know, a personal mind must have created it which is a big logical jump. His argument is void.
Mind body dualism
I think my opponent's argument is that the brain does not cause certain mental events, but rather that that determination comes form an outside source. He claims (I think, his sentence is very confusing) that I must show that there is an area in the brain that is responsible for decision making.
This area in the brain is the orbitfrontal cortex are of the brain . I believe I have debunked this argument as well.
Source: - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Conclusion: Pro's argument here is, um, dangit, I can't think of the right word to describe it. Maybe it starts with a v, or something. Oh, void. Pro's argument is void.
My opponent never linked the standards, so I already won there. Beyond that, most, if not all of his arguments have been refuted. Of course it is out of my hands now, but I don't think it is difficult to see who the winner of this debate is.
I thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate this interesting and important topic, and everybody who reads and votes this debate.
That's all folks!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
|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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.