God (Probably) Exists

Thanks to Aithlin for his opening arguments!I will be utilizing this round to refute them :)== KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ==I will only be contesting the first premise of the KCA in order to refute the entire argument's logical soundness."P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence."Firstly, I would like to observe that we have never witnessed anything "begin to exist". As a result of the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass, doing so is basically impossible. We have only seen *changes*, either physical, chemical, or sub-atomic. Since we have never seen anything begin to exist, we have no evidence for the notion that anything which begins to exist must have an external cause. Pro ignores the lack of evidence and attempts to deduce the truth value of this premise by the following logic: "If Premise 1 were to be false, then things would come into existence without a cause of their existence. Yet, this is clearly absurd."This may seem like a valid deduction, but upon closer inspection, we see that there are some major problems with this logic.Objection 1: It ignores the fact that conditions prior to the Big Bang were *radically* different from current conditions. Most noticeably different was that Space and Time did not exist yet. Space and Time form the very basis of our senses of perception and metaphysical intuition; as a result, we cannot even begin to imagine a plane of existence without the presence of Space and Time. We cannot assume that principles based on our observations within spacetime hold true when spacetime did not exist. Thus, our observations within spacetime cannot be used to validate the truth of the KCA's first premise, since the Big Bang did not happen within spacetime.Objection 2: It ignores the fact that two things cannot exist in the same space; something can't simply come into existence where there is something already there. Things can only come into existence where there is nothing there, and the latest developments in particle physics suggest that there is no such thing as "nothing" within our universe because even in what appears to be a complete vacuum, there is still a positive energy density, known as the Cosmological Constant (http://www.astro.ucla.edu...). Thus, it is impossible for us to observe things pop into existence within our universe, simply because the entirety of the space within our universe is already occupied. The fact that we *don't* observe things pop into existence within our universe does not prove anything regarding the truth of the KCA's first premise. "The metaphysical principle 'ex nihilo nihil fit', or 'nothing comes from nothing' is one of the most fundamental and intuitive principles within metaphysics."There is absolutely no evidence for notion that nothing comes from nothing. As explained in Objection 2, there is no such thing as actual "nothingness" within our universe, due to the existence of the cosmological constant. Because of this, we have *never* observed nothingness, and thus cannot rationally assume that something cannot come out of it. Pro, ignoring the utter lack of evidence to support 'ex nihilo nihil fit', attempts to make an appeal to our metaphysical intuitions in order to demonstrate the seeming absurdity of this principle being false. However, as explained in Objection 1, we cannot apply our metaphysical intuitions to the Big Bang because the Big Bang happened in the absence of spacetime, and our metaphysical intuitions are completely contingent on the existence of spacetime. In conclusion, it has thoroughly shown that the preliminary premise of the KCA is completely baseless, with no real reason to accept it. This alone refutes the logical soundness of the entire argument.== TELEOLOGICAL / FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT ==I sincerely apologize to Pro, but a something has suddenly came up in real life, forcing me to cut my argument short this round. I will definitely get around to refuting this contention next round, and hopefully the round following that will be enough for Pro to sufficiently counter my refutation. Again, Sorry :/Back to you, Pro!