God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe

"Extended Kalam Cosmological Argument" I believe I have shown in my previous round that this argument is flawed. "Possible naturalistic explanations such as quantum fluctuations or vacuums require space in order to occur including the virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence within a dimension of space (creating a negative gravitational exponent)." Correct, but I already explained that with Primary State Diffusion, where spacetime itself fluctuates on the quantum level. "Objective morality" The flaw here is premise 1. "some morals are objective" There is nothing solid to support this. "Support for objective morality: There has never been any record in human existence regardless of religion, culture, nationality, etc., allowing rape or murder without sufficient cause." Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here. "Support for objective morality: There has never been any record in human existence regardless of religion, culture, nationality, etc., allowing rape or murder without sufficient cause." What about murderers and rapists? Are you saying that every single one of them finds murder immoral? That they all find rape immoral? Joseph Stalin, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." http://www.brainyquote.com... It really doesn"t seem like he found murder to be immoral. It seems he found it quite acceptable. "A psychopath is fully in touch with reality and plans murders carefully. These are the people who know exactly what they are doing and want to inflict as much damage as possible. With no remorse, they are free to do as they please" http://www.psychologytoday.com... It also seems like these people do not find murder immoral. How about rape? Do the rapists actually feel that rape is immoral? Asian rape report actually shows that men do not think they are doing anything wrong. Most of the rapes were out of a sense of entitlement that the man had. Only 55.2% of the people interviewed said they felt guilt. http://www.cnn.com... This really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective. "The origin of intelligence" Where is your evidence for the first premise? This entire thing is so full of holes. 1. There is no evidence of the first premise. "(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information." There is no evidence for this. You also try and relate it to natural events, however there is no evidence that natural events have "instructions". Does the formation of a snowflake have instructions or is it just how it acts? "(2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity." Which means that said agent would have to have "specified complex information", making it go on ad infinitum. There is also no evidence to say this is true. If you are trying to bring up DNA here, this debate might interest you. http://www.debate.org... I should not have to point out all the flaws in this argument, so I will make one more comment. "We wouldn't assume that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion." We see scratches on stones all the time. Written language is just scratches and lines that we have given meaning to. Something like the Rosetta Stone is unlikely to form, but statistically possible. This is also a false analogy. Things started simple and became more complex over time. Today we would find a typewriter simple, but when it was created it was complex. Simple and complex are all subjective. "Human beings have intrinsic worth" There is a huge flaw in premise 3. "(3) no extrinsic criteria is needed to value a human being" If humans have intrinsic worth why did slavery exist? Why would there be genocides and murders? People do not see all human beings as valuable, they are valuable for different reasons for different people. It is extrinsic. One of the main components for the development of value, as well as morality, is empathy. http://www.bc.edu... "We would rescue a dying baby on the side of the road for no reason, donate to charity without retribution, and the controversy over abortion rests on whether a fetus is considered human without necessary extrinsic evaluation because humans are intrinsically valuable." And the fact that there are people that would not rescue the dying baby, that do not donate to charity without retribution, and that are arguing pro-choice shows that human life is extrinsic. Just like morals are subjective, how we value lives are as well. ___________________________________ I would like to point out that my opponent has violated the rules. He did not use evidence to support his 2nd, 3rd, or 4th argument. The only argument that he sourced was the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I showed to be faulty in my previous round. ___________________________________ In my previous round I showed how it is possible for the universe to exist naturally and showed a deductive argument for why a God cannot be the creator of the universe. Let us now use Occam"s Razor on which is more likely, God (B) or naturalism (A). A. We know there is at least one universe out there, and there is evidence of there being more than one. B. We do not know if there is even a single God out there and there is no evidence of one existing. A. We have a naturalistic explanation of how the universe could have started B. We do not have any explanation of where a God would have come from that cannot be used to instead support a naturalistic explanation instead. Occam"s Razor supports the one with the least assumptions, which is A, or a naturalistic explanation of the universe. If we invoke a God there are too many assumptions, but if we look at it as a naturalistic universe there are a lot less assumptions. We can also look at one of the points I made in my previous round. "We also can take into consideration that there was a super complex computer simulation of the universe using the currently discovered laws and theories of the universe, and the result? The simulated universe was almost exactly like our own. There were a few differences, showing that we have more laws and theories of the universe to discover, but looking at how close we are shows that the naturalistic view is very well supported. http://www.haaretz.com...; When we look at our current understanding of the universe we see that our universe follows a naturalistic pattern. It appears that we do not need a God to exist for our universe to exist. We still have more to learn about the universe, but we see that our universe needs no God. So, it is back to you Con.