God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

Thanks to Pro for his rebuttals, I can sense this will be a good and healthy debate. I hope to correct his perspectives of my arguments, as well as rebut his new argument introduced from Round 3 ("The Fine Tuning of the Universe"). So, in this Round, I will only rebut his opening contentions (too much to say, too little space). I would also like to point out to Pro that we only have space on this forum to sketch arguments (as he has done). First general comments. These arguments have similar failings. As we will see in the KCA, when discussing both the very big or very small, our English language is woefully inadequate. Terms like "explanation", "beginning", "cause" are thrown into a discussion on the something as big as the Universe or as small as a singularity as if they have meaning. Even the precision of the language of mathematics doesn't have the tools, to model this complex physics yet, so how Pro thinks the English language can cope is beyond me. All of Pros arguments are from his own personal incredulity. I can't possibly imagine how x could be otherwise without y, therefore y. Then he leaps in with some cherry picked and/or one-sided interpretation of science (like his view on the BGV theorem). The leading physicist behind BGV (Alan Guth (the G in BGV)), has stated he has no idea whether the Universe "began" or is "eternal". His theorem doesn't help either way. He actually tends towards an eternal Universe, because he finds those physical and mathematical models more promising. I find it surprising that models such BGV are constantly mis-applied by Theists seemingly a little too desperate to justify their beliefs using science, when they clearly do not understand it. Pro additionally has a problem with infinities, he clearly doesn't like them, and wishes to terminate an infinite regress in both arguments. How does he do this? By invoking an infinite being! So the strategy is to invoke an infinity, to terminate an infinity. In the case of the KCA he argues, that a series of infinite events unless terminated means we would be stuck somewhere in the past unable to get to where we are today. But by magically creating an interlocutor (an infinite god) he can terminate that series. Only trouble is that now that same infinite god must now cross his own infinite series of mental thoughts, and thus never arrive at his final "abracadbra...bring forth the universe!" moment. The argument from contingency Premise 3 is uncontroversial. I agree, there is an objectively existing Universe. Premise 1 is unfounded. It is not anti-science to suggest that everything in existence needs an explanation, when science itself teaches that the underlying nature of existence is indeed random. Of course we can point at macro-world objects or effects and explain them. But this is not so at the most fundamental level of nature. The simple intuition that contingent things could have been different, therefore they must have an explanation, is false. If we are serious about pursuing the question of a true contingency then we must also ask, why does there have to be a reason (explanation) at all. If some things could be otherwise, the explanation cannot be that there must be an explanation. A true contingency is genuinely random, like fluctuations in a quantum field. Premise 2 is a straight out composition fallacy. It is clear that even if everything that exists at any moment has an explanation to it, it does not follow that everything taken together has an explanation to it. As Bertrand Russel (1948) put it: "I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother -- that's a different logical sphere." In addition Premise 2 seeks to paint the Universe as contingent (it might not have existed, nor existed in its current form). This may be true, but how has he ruled out that the Universe could just be a brute fact? His conclusion is already assumed. Furthermore to what degree can a necessary and perfect being create something which is neither necessary nor perfect. If one accepts the meaninglessness of a "necessary being" (I do not, but for the sake of argument), how do we know it cannot only create other necessary things? For example to the extent humanity was already in a gods plan, surely we were already necessary (to that god), and therefore never contingent at all (this is further developed below). Some further general comments. Pro wishes to conclude that a god must be the explanation. Here he throws in some meaningless god-talk like spaceless, timeless etc and "bingo...phew what a relief" as if by magic it matches Pros own definition of god. Is the Atheist meant to be impressed at this point? It is merely a definitional move and a non-sequitur. The same of course applies to the KCA. Even if his Premises are true (and they are not), Pro has failed to demonstrate why the explanation of the Universe must be a god. But the coup-de-gras here, is that Pro actually presents an argument for Atheism. If a god was responsible for the Universe, the chances of there being this Universe are 100% (a god could not choose otherwise if he desired to bring about humanity, and of course could not fail to succeed). But, if the entire Universe is a contingency (as Pro believes), then the chances of there being this Universe by definition are less than 100% (it could have been otherwise). Meaning one of 3 things: 1) that a god cannot be the cause and therefore does not exist; or 2) that the argument from contingency is false; or 3) most likely both. The Kalam Cosomological Argument (KCA) The KCA is a philosophically well defended and established argument by its leading proponent WLC. The problem is that it is just a terrible argument. Firstly I would like to point out again that not even maths (a more precise language than English) can model the origins of the Universe. The argument is therefore "buggy" from the outset. This is why Sean Carroll famously once said of Premise 1 of the KCA that it is: "not only is it false, it is not even false". He meant that you cannot use this kind of reasoning and language when discussing the origins of the Universe. Even physics breaks down at the big-bang singularity, so what hope is there that we can uncover the truth using Aristotelian logic? Which at best is more rudimentary tooling than Astrophysics and Maths. Premise 1. This premise carries no definition of the term "cause" leading it open to equivocation. Is it taken to mean 1) human or divine action only? or, 2) Human or divine action + scientific causation? If the latter then this argument is at best inductive, as a scientific cause for the Universe may still await discovery and cannot be ruled out by fiat. However the whole premise is a subtle form a question begging. Here the Theist wants to lead you down a path where the only possible causal "things that DO NOT begin to exist" are gods. The argument should read: 1.Everything that isn't a god, has a cause for its existence 2.The Universe isn't a god 3.The Universe has a cause for its existence...er..er..and its god Put like this, the argument looks more obviously fallacious. What a surprise when we come to its conclusion then, that after further huffing and puffing around spaceless and timeless things again it was a god after all. So lets try a different tack. Consider the abstract notion of the structural rigidity of a triangle. This is spaceless, timeless and is something that didn't begin to exist. Does that also make it a candidate for Universal origins? Apparently not, because I'm sure Pro will argue it does not stand in a causal relationship. But it causes rigidity of man-made structures, doesn't it? That's not real causation my opponent will say...then I return him to the definition of what exactly he means by a cause and causation, which remains unclear. There is almost no support for the idea that things can come into existence without a cause. Apart, that is, from the incredulity of Pro who thinks it is ridiculous that cars and bicycles etc could "pop into existence". Well I agree that macro-world objects cannot. But how does Pro account for the existence of virtual particles that do "pop into existence", uncaused. Furthermore what does a bicycle say about the Universe as a whole. Again we have the fallacy of composition (even though my opponent tries to pre-empt it), you cannot construct from parts of the Universe, to the whole. Premise 2 is also false. What does it mean to say the Universe has a beginning? Physicists may use the term loosely (what other word can they use), but for the Universe to actually begin, time must have already been present. And as my opponent would no doubt concede, time "began" with the Universe, thus we seemingly have a problem. Put it another way, consider the statement "the Universal is eternal". What does it mean? If anything it must mean the Universe has existed for all of time. But as time "began" with the Universe, then the Universe can be indeed said to have existed for all of time, and is eternal: 1.Eternal means "has existed for all of time" 2.Time only "began" co-terminously with the Universe 3.The Universe is eternal and Premise 2 is false The conclusion by itself is also false in that it smuggles in yet another concept. Here we are told that the origins of the Universe have a cause. But how can that be? Causation is a temporal phenomenon, it requires the existence of time, with causes always preceding their effects. This particular "cause" is therefore not only before the existence of time, but also atemporal. Again what is the definition of cause here? So with all premises and conclusions refuted I hand back to Pro. Next round I will refute Fine Tuning and his criticisms of my Arguments for Atheism. There is plenty more to say but the space is limited. To the next Round..