Resolved: god Probably exists

. . ==Ex-nihilo/ex-materia== . . My opponent continues to argue that the universe came about ex-materia. I showed this illogical in the last round which my opponent did not address. In order for something to come about ex-materia that obviously means the matter in which it was made up of already existed. If we posit that the universe came about ex-materia that would mean the matter that made up the universe already existed. But that's the same as saying the universe existed prior to its existence which of course makes no sense. My opponent again fails to respond. I would also like to change my statement that the KCA posits creatio ex-nihilo to the KCA in no way posits creatio ex-materia. Creatio ex-materia is an illogical view of the universes origins. It does not even correlate with the KCA for the KCA says everything that begins to exist. When it says exist it does not in any way mean change form into a new object. That would make no sense. The universe can't have been created from pre-existing material because then it would already exist prior to its beginning! The assertion is absurd. The universe is made up of matter. It is impossible for that matter to exist prior to the universes beginning because then the universe would already exist. . . My opponents defence for premise one is to show how computers and tools are caused creations. He asserts that it is a self-evident observation of life. However, demonstrating that objects being formed from matter that was already there are caused, utterly falls short in showing that the whatever begins to exist has a cause. . . ==Quantum fluctuations== . Previously my opponent claimed the founder of this theory asserted that there was a cause it was just unknown. I pointed out that none of my opponents sources claimed such a thing. I don't know if my opponent just made it up or heard it somewhere and couldn't find a source to back it up but I would like to take note of his drop this round. . My opponent starts off misrepresenting my argument. He asks "how can nothing create something? " I clearly stated from the very beginning that empty space is not nothing but the closest we can get to nothing in this universe. Now if my opponent is using the term nothing while meaning empty space he still fails to refute it. His response could again be assumed a fallacious appeal to intuition. Questions and statements such as "nothing has no power", "Nothing cannot create something", and "Nothing is a non-intelligent force", are just groundless, unscientific and unsupported speculation. As I have already stated scientists themselves claim that "Quantum mechanics is so counter-intuitive, physicists have never been able to come up with a comfortable picture of how it works. " . . . http://atheism.about.com... . My opponent also would also have us think that observing atoms and molecules is a feat scientists have significant difficulty in doing. In a world in which scientists are able to create microscopic robots I think the situation is being misrepresented. . . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... . . . My opponent argues that quantum fluctuations do not actually occur from nothing as it is actually a vacuum. This falls short in two ways. Firstly I never once stated they come from nothing. From the initial start of this debate I always asserted that empty space was not nothing but the closest we come to nothing. Therefore it is irrelevant. Secondly I also from the start claimed that it occurred in a vacuum. This does not contradict the evidence. "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. " They are the "temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation. " . . . http://atheism.about.com... . "In classical physics (appliable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy. The picture [below] illustrates the kind of activities going on in a quantum vacuum. It shows particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle" . . . http://universe-review.ca... . . Con attempts to make his own theory about how quantum fluctuations are caused but in doing so makes assumptions about what I am arguing that were never made. He claims that the argument I'm supporting "is in a vaccum spitting universes (all expanging) an "uncaused" quantum fluctuation formed creating another universe. " I never made any such claim of quantum fluctuations causing the creation of universes. I really do not know where my opponent is getting this from. Furthermore my opponents reasoning is not really consistent if you look at it. He never shows us what the cause could be but rather mentions it would be a creator. However it really doesn't make any sense to think God would be up there causing random quantum fluctuations to occur in empty space. . . My opponent then moves on to accusing me of appealing to authority. This might bare some weight except that I was merely responding to my opponents unfounded assertions that the people I cited did not know what the theory was about when in reality they were scientists whose job and career it was to know what they were talking about. . . ==Cause of God/infinite regression of causes== . Just to get everyone back on track, my opponents first response to this was that God created time. Last round I challenged pro with the argument that time was a necessary physical construct and thus time would have to exist with God rather than him creating it. Unfortunately pro mainly ignores me and goes off on his own series of speculations which do not really address what I was saying. . . As I touched on last round, in a timeless world either all events occur simultaneously or no events would occur at all. As this is a true dichotomy all I need to do is show the irregularities of both thoughts to disprove my opponent. All events occurring simultaneously makes no sense. As I said last round, to which my opponent does not reply, X is an event in which Y occurs and Z is an event in which Y ends. In a timeless world Y would occur at the very time in which Y ends. That makes no sense for the vast majority of things cannot occur at the same time they end. Therefore it can be assumed that a world in which all events happen simultaneously can't exist. The second view is easily refuted. If no events occur at all than God would not perform any actions and thus even creating time would be impossible let alone the universe. . . My opponents second and largest paragraph I find lacking in any address to my argument. It seems like my opponent just took the general thought of an essay or article that had to do with time and just posted it here. None of it, or at least most of it, has very little relevance. I will try to present the general gist of what my opponent is saying. What makes me most think that my opponent does not know what he is talking about is himself claiming that time is infite. "The ever-stretching boundary of time going far far backwards and left shows that there has been as much an infinite amount of time for X to happen" This is completely inconsistent with my opponents views that time was created, thus my opponent is not really doing much to defend himself. He also claims that natural causes are mindless which I would have to whole-heartily disagree with. Despite my opponent arguing against a naturalistic view he asserts this casually as if it is evident. However naturalism would assume we are all nature. Thus beings possessing minds are evidence against the statement that all natural causes are mindless. My opponents statement "with an infinite regress of past events or opportunities, it is inexplicable why mindless natural causes would choose one opportunity over another," is also irrelevant as my position does not assume an infinite amount of past events. Perhaps if I refuted premise 2 this statement would have some baring but currently it has no relevance. . //if the Universe requires time to be caused, then the Universe can not cause itself to come into being because no time existed. Pro's argument leads us to the conclusion that NOTHING could have come into being before time, therefore nothing came into being. // . . This is easily refuted for uncaused events do not need time to occur they simply occur. . . Pro quotes a large paragraph from my previous round and 'refutes' it simply be saying, "Just an assertion, a red herring. " To count that as anything more than a drop would unjust. Pro can't just lazily toss aside an argument by calling it a red herring. He needs to actually address it. Philosophy is all about pure reasoning, thus it does not need evidence to back it up rather than just the logic that it consists of. . . ==Hidden premise== . My opponent has waited this entire debate to only respond to the contention that there is an unaddressed jump from cause to God in the last round. His only argument for it however is rather grasping. He asserts that mere chance is unlikely and leaves it at that. Ok? How about show exactly what the chances are for a cause other than God? Maybe the chances are actually better. We can't tell until we actually know them! Pro exhibits utter failure to prove that the the cause must be God. . . I again thank my opponent for the debate and the judges for reading it. I hope all voting goes fairly.