It is Probable That God Exists

Thanks, again, to Microsuck for his rebuttals to my argument. However, the KCA and OA that I have offered do not have serious flaws at all. In fact, they are logically air-tight. The only way to actually defeat the arguments themselves is to attack the arguments, not try to see logical fallacies where there are none.Kalam Cosmological ArgumentObservation 1: Divine AttributesThe burden of proof is to show that it is probable that God exists, as these two arguments, in particular, show. The KCA, specifically, shows that this God is all-powerful (omnipotent), because He is able to create the entire universe from nothing; that is, from non-being to being. It also shows that God is all-knowing (omniscient). He created the universe, so He certainly knows all there is to know about it. There are other arguments to be used for a cumulative case, but as I stated in the opening round space only permits two arguments (leaving space for my opponent to present his case to leave room for rebuttals). The KCA clearly shows that there is a Creator who created the universe, since the creation of the universe must be from outside itself -- it is impossible for something to bring itself into existence because it literally did not exist before it did.Premise 1 -- Everything that has a beginning has a cause.We know this premise to be correct. These particles do not come into being uncaused, they come into being through quantum fluctuations. Using quantum mechanics equivocates on the definition of "nothing" because in philosophy, "nothing" is literally "non-existence." It literally does not exist. Additionally, just because these particles may appear uncaused does not mean that they are. Scientists may one day discover a cause. Thirdly, these particles are only uncaused if you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, which is one of many. There is no reason to presuppose it is true (and assuming it must be true to attack the KCA is begging the question).Premise 2 -- The universe began to exist.I have already addressed this in my defense of premise 1, but nothing literally does not exist, as Con even concedes. This is such a thing, ontologically, as nothing but it literally does not exist. Con has not shown why the universe has always existed, he just asserts it. Con even concedes "nothing" does not exist in physics. You can't disprove a metaphysical argument by appealing to physics. "Nothing" is a perfectly valid concept in philosophy. I have already shown why the universe is not eternal, and why it requires a Creator.B Theory of time.The KCA does not have to rest on the A theory of time, with respect to Dr. Craig. However, Con has offered no proof that the A theory is wrong. He uses an appeal to authority fallacy to argue his point. However, at the beginning when the universe was created, time was also created. It had no past at the beginning, but every point after that had a past. There is no reason to assume that the past no longer exists once it goes by.Con's arguments against the KCA fail.The Ontological ArgumentAgain, this argument is logically air-tight. It argues from modal logic. The only way to disprove this argument is to attack premise one. If premise one succeeds, the rest of the argument succeeds.Premise 1 -- It is possible a Maximally Great Being exists.This does not beg the question. In fact, I defined what a Maximally Great Being is in round two. Please review it.Equivocation.I also explained why the argument doesn't define God into existence in round two. We are arguing for a God who exists necessarily, one who exists in reality. There is no equivocation on my part here.Con's argument likewise fails. God is a maximally great being because he has all qualities which are better to have, to their maximal extent. This argument does not argue from "thought," but from "possible worlds." God is a maximally great being because He is an necessary being; that is, He exists in all possible worlds, which includes the actual world (the one we live in).The two arguments I have presented make a logically airtight case against God, and the arguments that Con presented have not shown any of the premises wrong. It is very much probable that God exists.