Physical reality (all spacetime) began to exist.
• [Big Bang] Gravity equations yield a past-bound singularity.
• [BGV theorem] Any average-expanding space has a beginning.
• [2nd Law] Total entropic decay has not arrived yet.
• [General 2nd Law] Total generalized entropy is not maxed.
• [Philosophy] Logically, prior events cannot number to infinity.
• [See full debate: Did physical reality (all-space-time) begin to exist?]
• …a beginningless-cosmos model is true (e.g. emergent, pre-BigBang, cyclic).
• …the Schrödinger equation implies the past is eternal. [Forthcoming]
• …time does not truly exist. [Forthcoming]
• …there is no first point in time. [Forthcoming]
• …the singularity isn’t a first event (it is not in time). [Forthcoming]
The Universe/physics is fine-tuned for permitting life.1
• …various constants of physics are fine-tuned.
• …various initial conditions are fine-tuned.
• …various laws of physics are fine-tuned.
• …changes just yield different life forms
• …constant's can't be different (T.O.E.)
• …life-friendly Universes are rare but probable[Forthcoming]
• …one can't do probabilities with an infinite range[Forthcoming]
• …new knowledge will eliminate fine-tuning
• …over 99.9% of the universe is hostile to life.
But so what if the Universe is fine-tuned (or life-permitting)? Plausibly…
• …many universes exist or existed, and we won the universe lottery.4
• …we would not be here unless the unlikely did occur.
• …the Universe is equally fine-tuned to permit rocks, etc.[Forthcoming]
• …-t is only fine-tuned to life as we know it.
• …God would need a fine-tuner, too.
• …“God did it” is not an explanation.
The Universe is fine-tuned for being discoverable[Forthcoming] (i.e., of all the known ways the universe could have been, and even among the subset which allows for lifeforms, few have initial conditions, laws, and physical constants which would ever allow those lifeforms to learn about it). This is a very awkward and shocking development for atheists 1 because it means for them* that we got really lucky for no reason. If God exists, however, then the Universe’s amenability to being discovered and known is not nearly so surprising or improbable.2 Such a universe is the kind of thing God would plausibly choose to create.
Features of living organisms resemble intelligent designs.
• … the cell and its inner-workings are.
But so what if life gives a superficial appearance of design? Plausibly…
• … [life evolved in an unguided way that mimics the pattern of intelligent design].[Forthcoming]
Our cognitive faculties are generally reliable.1
• …x law of physics is constant.
• …x happened in the past.
• …x exists outside my mind.
• …x is conscious.
• …x is objectively morally wrong.
• …x could've occurred.
But so what if our cognitive faculties are generally reliable? Plausibly…
• reliable faculties were selected for by an unguided evolutionary process.[Forthcoming]
Humans are innately inclined to be theists.
• …scientists find theism intuitive. (Boston study, 2013)
• …atheists find theism intuitive. (Finland study, 2013)
• …humans are born believers. (Oxford study, 2011)
• …intuitive thinkers favor theism. (Harvard study, 2011)
But so what? Plausibly,
• The God intuition is a misleading evolutionary byproduct?
Some actions are objectively morally wrong (i.e., wrong despite what anybody believes). This is relevant because the existence of such specifically personal facts in the world is unlikely if the world is, at bottom, impersonal (particles and physics), and yet it is very much the kind of thing we would anticipate if a God exists who grounds the world and who could not fail to have been loving, honest, etc.
But so what? Plausibly… [All Forthcoming]
• x's net consequences are bad.
• x is done for bad reasons.
• x wouldn't be done by an “ideal observer”.
A necessary being exists.
• Turri's Argument from Beginnings
• A “Sum-styled” Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• A “Start-styled” Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• Pruss's Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• A Big Bang Argument from Beginnings
• Rasmussen's Modal Argument from Beginnings
• Weaver's Argument from Beginnings
[Brackets] mean “forthcoming.”
God's properties are incoherent or yield contradictions
• …all-powerful (e.g. able to life unliftable rocks)!
• …free (will)
• …perfectly rational
• …both timeless and personal
• …both timeless and a creator
• …both omniscient and libertarianly free
• …both omnipotent and omnibenevolent
• …both all-just and all-loving
The idea of a God existing is extraordinary and extravagant.[Forthcoming] (That is to say, the prior probability of God’s existence—prior to looking at evidence—seems very low.) This is relevant because a low prior probability is functionally similar to having evidence against it. More complex and bold hypothesis have more ways/chances of being wrong. We expect them to be wrong in the absence of sufficient evidence.
• …the God of bare theism is more simple than a single fundamental particle. God is a unified soul (an unbreakable thing with no parts)1, and its the simplest possible soul: it only has three fundamental properties (those necessary for being a soul), and in their simplest form—without limits.2
• …reason alone confirms theism (or something close). [Forthcoming]
Fundamental reality is mind-less (or mathematically describable). This is relevant because God is essentially a thinking-thing without limits, and God's behavior cannot be captured by mathematical equation.
No, [All Forthcoming]
• Mental properties exist.
• Souls exist
• Heaven exists
• Moral facts exist
• The cause of of the natural world exists
Any good God who exists would've chosen to ensure less (or no) suffering occur
• …plausibly, greater good require, risk, or result in suffering. Like the conjunctive goods of…
Any loving God who exists would've chosen to ensure less (or no) disbelief occur.
•…belief in God is required for relationship with God.
“God did-it” is not a real potential explanation.
• …“God-did-it” is just an appeal to ignorance-gaps
• …“God-did-it” is just an appeal to magic
• …explanations don't compound the mystery
• …explanations don't explain “too much”
• …meaningful claims are verifiable (by senses)
• …meaningful claims are falsifiable/testable
• …explanations cite effective mechanisms
• …explanations are unificationist