It is likely that a God or gods exist

Burden of Proof I stated in round 1 that Pro and Con share the burden of proof in this debate. That means that my opponent must offer arguments in order to negate the resolution. However, Con has not done so. I contend that if my opponent does not make any arguments, he will not have fulfilled his burden of proof, so the debate automatically results in my victory. Since my opponent has no arguments to refute, I will use the remainder of my space to respond to my opponent's criticisms of my arguments. Argument from Religious Experiences Con barely responds to my points. I argued that, on atheism, we have no reason to believe that people would have supernatural experiences. Yet, clearly many do. Theism and deism have a strong explanation for these experiences, namely that the supernatural exists, whereas atheism does not. The only explanation that Con has tried to provide is that the brain seeks patterns. Forgive me if this does not seem like a particularly simple, well-developed, plausible explanation for divine experiences! Also, the Parable of the Blind Men is in response to atheists that believe that religious pluralism refutes these experiences. The parable demonstrates that it does not- people can have different experiences of the divine while still experiencing the divine. It is the atheist that needs to prove that different experiences of the divine invalidate these personal experiences. Until Con can provide a case for the plausibility of a hypothesis such as the "Mass Delusion" Hypothesis, the God Hypothesis remains the most plausible theory to explain religious experiences. Fine-Tuning Argument My opponent invokes the Weak Anthropic Principle [6] in order to "explain" fine-tuning. It should first be noted that if a god made the universe such that it is optimized for interesting chemistry instead, it would still provide evidence for existence of a god. The argument is supported by, but does not depend on, the contention that the universe is fine-tuned specifically for life. Second, the anthropic principle rebuttal is refuted by a thought experiment by physicist Luke Barnes [3]. Suppose you are sitting on the porch of your house with your grandfather, and he tells you that he is Magneto. You don't believe him. Then, a nearby train derails containing TNT, shrapnel, and 50,000 knives. You duck, but two seconds later you are alive. You turn around and see your house covered with 50,000 knives except for silhouettes corresponding to you and your grandfather. You tell your grandfather that you still don't believe that he is Magneto because "It is logically impossible for me to observe being dead, so of course all the knives missed me! " Clearly, the anthropic principle does not really explain the critical question, namely why the knives missed you, or in our case, why the universe is fine-tuned. So the anthropic principle does not help Con's case at all. Also, my opponent references the Multiverse Hypothesis but barely develops the idea. Robin Collins offers five reasons to reject the Multiverse Hypothesis for the God Hypothesis, one of which is that any universe-generating mechanism would also need to be designed [7]. A couple other arguments are that the God Hypothesis is simpler to the Multiverse Hypothesis and that the Multiverse Hypothesis is an ad hoc attempt to avoid the God Hypothesis. If my opponent wants to rely on the Multiverse Hypothesis, he needs to create a plausible case for it. So it would seem that my opponent"s objections do not adequately respond to the Fine-Tuning Argument. Kalam Cosmological Argument Con believes that the speed of light gives us good reason to believe that laws that apply within the universe don"t apply to the universe. However, this is to mistake the first premise for a physical law, when it is in fact claimed to be a metaphysical law, supported both by a priori reasons and a posteriori evidence. Moreover, Con interprets "begins to exist" in the argument as meaning something like "x begins to exist = x exists at t, and there is a time prior to t at which x does not exist. " However, William Craig, in his paper Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause: A Rejoinder, contends that if we take the first premise as truly matching our intuitions, we should interpret "begins to exist" as meaning "x comes into being at t = x exists at t; t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any time t* < t at which x existed by a non-degenerate, temporal interval; and x's existing at t is a tensed fact" [8]. This definition takes into account the intuition that things which have existed for a finite time have begun to exist. My opponent could claim that causes always stand in temporal relation with their effects. But, as Craig notes, this "is not at all incompatible with the kalam argument's conclusion, since its defender may hold that God exists timelessly sans creation and temporally at and subsequent to the moment of creation, so that His act of causing the beginning of the universe is simultaneous with the universe's beginning to exist" [8]. In other words, the cause of the universe could be simultaneous with its effect; the cause does not have to be "before" time. Towards my scientific arguments, my opponent does not challenge the standard Big Bang model, nor does he provide an alternative model which avoids an absolute beginning. He does challenge the BGV Theorem, saying that it only applies to classical models of the universe. However, not only does he not provide a plausible nonclassical model which avoids a temporal beginning to compete with the Big Bang model, but he also does not show why we should not think that the theorem provides good evidence to strongly suspect that such a conclusion also holds for a nonclassical model. Even if the BGV Theorem does not conclusively prove that the universe has a beginning, it strongly points to the possibility that it does. If my opponent wants more scientific evidence, he can read a paper by physicists Mithani and Vilenkin, which concludes, "Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes" [9]. If my opponent wants to deny the beginning of the universe, he has to respond to this conclusion. Finally, Con completely ignores my argument against infinity based on Hilbert's Hotel. This argument extends. Without sufficient rebuttals to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, this argument is ample proof that a God or gods exist. Conclusion It appears that my opponent has failed to refute any of my arguments, namely the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experiences. Moreover, Con has provided NO arguments to negate the resolution, and hence he does not fulfill his burden of proof. Until he does so, we have strong reasons to affirm the resolution- it is likely that a God or gods exist. [6] . http://science.howstuffworks.com... [3] . http://ia902708.us.archive.org... [7] . http://www.discovery.org... [8] . http://www.leaderu.com... [9] . http://arxiv.org...