It is likely that a God or gods exist

Although my opponent refuses to admit his dishonesty, I thank him for a complex debate. I still maintain that TinyURL links are inappropriate. Sources are very important, and hence they should take up the character limit. Arguments for Atheism Argument Against Causality Once again, my opponent completely ignores my argument for simultaneous causation. I continue to maintain that God, as a supernatural being, is not, by definition, bound by the laws of nature, which my opponent admits [20]. My opponent accuses me of just following a dogmatic assertion, but that’s like arguing that saying that a square has four sides is a dogmatic assertion that needs to be proved (it is part of the definition). In truth, Con is committing the fallacy of begging the question against theism with this argument. Con already assumes that the supernatural is impossible when he says that the supernatural must obey natural laws in order to argue against the supernatural. This is question-begging, and I have yet to see a reason why the supernatural does not exist. Hence, this argument is negated. Quantum Superposition My opponent has not responded to my house analogy that shows that the creator of the universe need not be all-seeing; this argument extends. I have also refuted what Con says about the supernatural needing to obey natural laws when I addressed the Argument Against Causality. This argument does not succeed in disproving anything and is abysmal. Vacuum Fluctuation Argument I must express my disappointment that my opponent has refused to be honest about this. As I said in the previous round, vacuum fluctuation and vacuum genesis sound like the same thing to me. I agree that on its own, showing Tejretic’s debate with Philocat is inconclusive, but taken together with the fact that *all three* of his sources in round 2 are about vacuum fluctuations, I think my opponent is being deliberately dishonest. As I said in the previous round, Quentin Smith, in my opponent’s own quote, says that these models represent the beginning as a “vacuum fluctuation” [15], and the other paper that my opponent cites is titled, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” [17]. According to Craig, in this very paper, the author speculated that the universe might be a “long-lived virtual particle, whose total energy is zero, born out of the primordial vacuum” [11]. In other words, zero-energy genesis models and vacuum fluctuation models are the same thing. My opponent has done absolutely nothing to distinguish zero-energy genesis models from these vacuum fluctuation models that I have refuted in round 3. Frankly, if my opponent did not want to argue for a vacuum fluctuation model, he should have developed his argument a lot better rather than haphazardly citing outdated sources. My opponent complains that I called him out on citing old sources, saying that that only matters if I refuted them. But of course, I did refute them! Personally, I think my opponent has *no idea* how to respond to my criticisms of the vacuum fluctuation model, which is why he engages in such dishonest maneuvering. My refutations of vacuum fluctuation models extend. Cognizant of the weakness of his argument, my opponent has begun using criticisms of the KCA that he never mentioned previously. Despite claiming in round 3 that he believes that the universe began to exist without cause, he now argues against this second premise, arguing against the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and Hilbert’s Hotel. I think this is disingenuous; if my opponent accepts the second premise of the KCA, it does not matter whether he thinks my arguments for the second premise are wrong. For this reason, I do not believe I even have to argue against his new criticisms. Nevertheless, let’s briefly see where these criticisms go wrong. Arguments for Theism Kalam Cosmological Argument The first premise of the argument is “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” I advanced three arguments for this premise, and *none* have been addressed by my opponent; they extend. My opponent cites quantum fluctuations are a violation, but this is incorrect. According to Craig, there are perfectly valid interpretations of quantum mechanics in which quantum events are deterministic, such as the theories of David Bohm [21]. Craig also points out that the quantum vacuum is a “sea of fluctuating energy”, not “nothing,” and is therefore not a violation of the first premise [21]. My opponent also points to acausal models, like ekpyrotic models. Again, my opponent misuses sources by citing without developing or explaining. Con cites quantum entanglement without explaining how this explains an acausal beginning of the universe at all. He cites ekpyrotic models without developing them, but according to Craig, ekpryotic models are a type of string scenario/M-theory [22], which my opponent in the last round conceded was dubious. The first premise remains unrefuted. My opponent has claimed throughout the debate that the universe began to exist, and his choice to suddenly start attacking this premise is a more proof of his dishonesty. Con cites Michael Martin to attack Hilbert’s Hotel, but Martin is wrong. When you subtract infinite quantities from infinite quantities, you get contradictions. As Craig explains, “In transfinite arithmetic, inverse operations of subtraction and division with infinite quantities are prohibited because they lead to contradictions… But in reality, one cannot stop people from checking out of a hotel if they so desire!” [23]. My opponent also cites black holes as an example of an actual infinite, claiming that black holes have infinite density. But density is a ratio, not a quantity. What is actually going on when physicists claim black holes are infinitely dense is that black holes have a finite amount of matter compressed into a volume approaching zero. Since our mathematics starts to break down at that point, physicist call this infinite density. However, it is clear from this explanation that no infinite quantities are actually involved here. I use the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to refute certain models that it does apply to, and while my opponent does not develop an argument against presentism, I maintain that Craig shows that presentism is compatible with modern physics [24]. Finally, my opponent dropped his objections against my argument that the cause of the universe must be personal. This argument extends, and the KCA remains unrefuted. Fine-Tuning In round 3, my opponent cited Stephen Hawking’s book to prove that “The second law of thermodynamics *majorly* increases the mathematical probability of the “fine-tuning” of the universe being created out of a combination of gravitational physical necessity… and randomness.” I cited William Lane Craig’s response to the book to show that, in fact, Stephen Hawking does not believe this, and instead thinks that a multiverse theory is needed to avoid fine-tuning [18]. This is yet another example of dishonesty by my opponent. My opponent’s claim that the second law of thermodynamics fixes fine-tuning is a non-sequitor, and my opponent has never actually explained how this works. My opponent also questions whether the purpose of the fine-tuning is life. This is irrelevant- the point is, fine-tuning exists, and it requires an explanation. This argument remains unrefuted. Religious Experiences #1 Con completely drops the fairy argument #2 I refer my opponent to round 4. Read the paragraph beginning with “Con says a psychological explanation is simpler.” My response is there. #3 My opponent does not appear to even understand the parable I cited and does not substantively respond to what I said. He repeats the question-begging assertion that God must obey the laws of physics. #4 My arguments show that God is within background knowledge. My case is cumulative. #5 Con incorrectly dismisses what I say here as ad hoc without properly addressing it. I encourage readers to read what I said and decide for themselves whether this really is ad hoc. Con also denies that an inner feeling or presence, like what Mark Vulvetic felt, is an actual religious experience. Mark Vulvetic believed in God so strongly that not believing was on par with not believing that the external world exists, and my opponent needs to address these types of experiences too. If Con is correct, Vulvetic, and the majority of the people in the world, are delusional. Thus, the Argument from Religious Experiences stands unrefuted. Conclusion I have successfully defended all of my arguments, and I only need one to work in order to affirm the resolution. In the meantime, I have refuted all my opponent’s arguments, exposed my opponent’s blatant dishonesty at multiple points in the debate, and pointed out contradictions between my opponent’s earlier and later claims. Moreover, I have showed that my opponent improperly uses sources, sometimes blatantly dishonestly and sometimes without using them to actually construct a clear, well-developed argument. The resolution is resoundingly affirmed. VOTE PRO. [20] Google ["define supernatural"] [15] http://infidels.org... [17] http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [11] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [21] Craig, William Lane., and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. 6. Print. [22] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. 137-138. Print. [23] Craig, William Lane., and James Porter Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. 111. Print. [24] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [18] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;