There Exists Either Irrefutable or Reasonable Grounds for Believing in the Existence of God

A true shame. I've already written my response to the cosmological argument. So here it is. I suggest, if Pro has no further comments, that we quickly reply to each round in order to end the debate. The Kalam Cosmological Argument I will cover 3 main points and 2 minor points. 1) Unsubstantiated Premise 1 Pro says: "P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause" I now challenge pro to demonstrate one object that began to exist due to a cause. Note, this cannot include reshaping or reordering of matter or energy (like a carpenter making a chair out of wood). This must be an ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation due to a cause. The laws of thermodynamics forbid this in our universe. The very laws of physics say that Pro will not be able to demonstrate even one instance of Premise 1. It will be interesting to see his response. Furthermore, Pro faces the problem of induction. Even if Pro could demonstrate that one object began because of a cause, the burden is on him to show that things beginning to exist necessarily have a cause. The only reason we should think that everything thing that begins to exist has a cause is if it necessary. Premise 1 is wholly unsubstantiated. 2) The failure of language The notion of causality has a fundamental time component. One instance there isn't, another there is (due to the effect of another thing). However, time is a component of our universe as fundamental as space. Time was created along with space at the big bang. Hence why in Physics, the two are unified into one; spacetime. As such, it makes no sense to talk about causality if there is no time (i.e. before there was a universe). Perhaps there is no causality at all without a universe. 3) Hypotheses and assumptions Pro has done my work for me. He has argued that it is impossible for nothingness to exist but that which exists is not necessarily God. Pro says: "However, even "potential" is "something" in its own right in this particular context, and it definitely does not fall is line with absolute nothingness (absolute nothingness would lack literally everything, including qualities like "the potential for something to exist")." As we know that the universe exists, 'before' it there must be the potential to exist. If there must be this potential to exist, it is either eternal, or had the potential to exist. But then potential for the potential to exist to exist either always existed or had the potential to exist... etc. To answer the question 'what caused the universe?' pro has argued that the best explanation is God, a being that never began to exist but always existed. Why then, could that which always existed be the potential to exist? From here, we can speculate that the universe 'caused' itself (remember, causality is pretty much meaningless), or that zero energy universes[1] (as ours may be) can arise spontaneously and without contradiction from an all permeating eternal (as Pro himself demonstrated) potential. I may not agree with this theory but it sure is more plausible than an omnipotent, sentient, omnipresent God. It makes very few assumptions. The assumption it makes is that universes may exist within the potential so long as their total energy is 0. Pro's conclusion assumes the existence of the most complex being conceivable. Occam's razor would tell us to discard the hypothesis with the most and greatest assumptions. It seems that the God hypothesis should be discarded in favour of the zero energy universe/ potential hypothesis. The point here is that there exist plenty of theories that make fewer assumptions about the 'cause' of the Big Bang. The reason why people stick to the idea of God is because they are comfortable with it. People are surrounded by religion and thus swallow the idea of an infinitely complex eternal being. However, because this being is eternal and infinitely complex, any hypothesis which fully explains the origin of the universe is a better one. 'Spontaneous generation' fully explains the universe and is simpler than an infinitely complex God. God is the worst answer to the question 'where did the universe come from?' 4) Mental causation Minds do not have causal powers. I cannot affect any causal change with the power of my mind. Why does Pro think that if there was a cause there must have been a mind when no mind we have ever encountered has any causal effect? 5) Personal causation I encourage Pro to reread his paragraph on personal causation. It makes no sense. Why does the existence of time demonstrate that God is personal (involved in human lives)? Conclusion The Kalam Cosmological argument does not stand. Its first premise if fully unsubstantiated. The language of causality assumes causal events without time (even though causality has a fundamental component of time). The argument does not necessarily lead to the idea that God exists; God is a solution to the problem of how the universe came to be (this falls under the second type of argument I discussed in the terms of the debate). However, all other hypotheses (including spontaneous generation of the universe), making fewer and smaller assumptions (as the assumption of maximally great is the greatest assumption possible) are better than the God hypothesis. If Pro wishes the Kalam Cosmological Argument to stand he must: 1) Substantiate the first premise. This includes demonstrating one instance of ex nihilo causal creation and why ex nihilo existence necessarily must have a cause. 2) Explain why a model of classical causality must be retained when talking about before time existed. 3) Why 'God' is the best solution to the question raised by the argument (what caused the universe?) Pro has not (even if all arguments were granted to him) fulfilled his burden of proof. He has not shown why God would be personal (involved in human affairs). His description of God could easily be a deistic one (one who created the universe and left). Pro has not demonstrated that God's existence is necessary or that God is the best solution to a problem. As such, he has not shown 'irrefutable or reasonable grounds for believing in the existence of a God'. His ontological argument is logically flawed and his Kalam Cosmological argument has an unsubstantiated premise and his solution (God) is a bigger assumption than other hypotheses. Citations [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...