SPinko Tournament: God probably exists. (Rd. 1)

However, I will refute my partner's arguments thus far. MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTSI. THE ARGUMENT FROM EFFICENT CAUSEI argued in the last round that it begged a few questions that needed to answered. He attempted to answer the questions and I will be refuting his answers. Begging the QuestionQuestion 1: Why couldn't the universe come into existence based upon its own force/motion? My opponent argued that it negated itself because it isn't possible fo the universe to not have existed, and then based upon its own force created itself. However, my opponent commits the fallacy of special pleading by arguing that, although the universe needed a prime mover, God did not. I also argued that it was possible via the argument from quantum fluctuations. Moreover, I have presented a theory that the universe is indeed eternal, but has changed forms over time. Question 2: What created God? My opponent once again makes the fallacy of special peading. He states that God is not contingent, yet I argue that he is. For one if I argue that God exists, there is nothing that cannot prevent him from not existing. To flip the question around, "Why is there God rather than no God. " Moreover, one may argue that God is necessiary, yet you cannot define a being ino existence without begging the question/circularreasoning. Question 3: What moved God? See aboveQuestion 4: Why are we going be your definition? I agreed that it was what we were arguing for. However, as pointed out above, the argument cannot prove that it is the God that you defined. Therefore, you haven't met your BoP. Premise 2/3 is wrong Not refuted. II. ARGUMENT FROM MOTION. Quantum fluctuationsI argue that it is still creation ex nihlo. "In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. " (Davies 1983: 162) [1] So my hypothesis, which hasn't been refuted, is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation. In fact, the modern understanding of physics still allow for such an idea:"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. " (Pagels 1982: 247) [2] So, the universe does not require a God and it is reasonable within the realm of modern physics for the universe to have began as a qunatum fluctuation. MY ARGUMNTMy defense to the weak atheism case has not been refuted. Therefore, I urge a con vote CONCLUSION My partner has not met his burden of proof. Moreover, it has been shown that it is possible for the universe to have been created ex nhilo which negates both argumens. Moreover, God is contingent. Even if God exists, it is possible that he does not. Finally, I argue for weak atheism. Without PEARL there is no reson to believe. Has he given us the PEARL (Phsyical Evidence and Reasoned Logic)? I believe he has not. As such, I urge a vote for the negative. Resolution negated. __________________________Sources/Footnotes1. Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Quoted . http://www.infidels.org.... It s also arguable that there is no such thing as true "nothingness. " However, because it is the last round, I will not bring that up and it is irrelavent. 2. Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam. Quoted in the above URL.