God most likely exists

Occam's RazorPro misrepresents my argument. That was merely a part of my argument. I'm arguing that under Occam's razor, God posits a more complex hypothesis. I argue that God is not necessary to explain anything in the universe, and that the BoP is on Pro. Pro concedes the BoP issue. The causality argument was not a bare assertion. I clearly justified that it is incoherent for an efficient cause, not any cause. An efficient cause is a cause that precedes the effect. I argued that it is impossible for God to be an efficient cause. There was nothing "before the universe," because time itself began with the universe. Sans the universe, there is no time directionality, therefore it is incoherent to claim that a cause preceded the universe, or that the universe began. Now, this in itself does not pose a strong argument against God, because it is possible to add an ad hoc explanation, that the cause did not precede the effect. William Lane Craig argues that God caused the universe in one instantaneous cause. [6] I argue that if simultaneous causation is possible -- which has to be conceded by any theist -- then quark-electron simultaneous causality is also possible. Since quarks and electrons exist under any worldview, but God doesn't, by Occam's razor the quark-electron hypothesis is simpler and, therefore, more likely. Further evidence for the idea that Pro is advocating for a God that preceded the universe is present within their defense of the cosmological argument. Pro argues that God is transcendent to the universe entirely; therefore, he lacks the properties of the universe (e.g. space, time). But if an external cause did not precede the universe, it does not need transcendence; for instance, quarks and electrons do have properties of the universe, and there have even been hypotheses of the universe causing itself, which is possible under simultaneous causation. Cosmological Argument(1) I agree that my first objection relies on the idea that Pro has only proven causality in the physical realm. But Pro has not proven causality outside of the physical realm. The only justification Pro had was that things in the universe haven't been observed coming ex nihilo; a book can't come out of nowhere in a room, says Pro. If a room is not within the physical realm, I don't know what the "physical realm" is. But the uniformity of nature objection does not rely on that. Uniformitarianism is assumed within the universe as well. This example is only one example. Just because we haven't observed objects coming ex nihilo anywhere in the universe doesn't show that there are not any such objects. That can only be concluded assuming the uniformity of nature. [6](2) The burden of proof is on Pro. Pro's argument relies on the idea that the universe is expanding by an absolute frame of reference. Pro has to prove that assumption, else presume Con. Pro has just shown that the idea that it isn't expanding per an absolute frame of reference has been "objected to," not that it is wrong. But even if I give a hypothesis equally likely as Pro, Pro has the burden, so vote Con. I don't need to explain why my theories are better; the burden is on you. Pro is committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. (3) The analogy is utter nonsense. The only burden atheists have while disproving God is disproving any property of God -- the paradox of the stone does that. On the other hands, for theists to fulfill their burden, they have to prove every property of God. In other words, if I showed that even one property of God was impossible, I have fulfilled my burden; but Pro has to demonstrate every property of God, which the KCA fails to do. In fact, all the KCA proves is an "external cause." I can even completely concede that, and hold that this external cause is a quark/electron. First CauseLike I said, I concede a first cause. What I do not concede is that the universe necessarily had a cause. Pro has to prove that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true. Analogies aren't enough, sunce they commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. He has to prove, without making any unjustified assumption, that the PSR applies everywhere, under all conditions. The PSR also says that any contingent object is contingent on another object, but there's no reason to believe the universe is contingent. What if the universe was necesssary? Pro assumes God is necessary rather than being caused, but then stop the chain at a lower level: if the universe was necessary, by Occam's razor God is an unnecessary assumption. There's no reason for the first cause to be transcendent to the universe. As detailed above, simultaneous causality is possible. It has been proven by experiment. This means the universe could have caused itself, or particles within it could have caused themselves into existence via an infinite regression of causes. Pro doesn't give a reason to believe simultaneous causality is impossible; he just barely asserts it. I don't see how causing the universe requires intelligence. The cause did something independently. How does that imply an intelligent cause? Take the example of binary fission in amoebae, where the amoeba divides into two, thus one causes the other. There is no predetermination, and no intelligence either. Fine Tuning(1) Pro's source is merely an appeal to authority. There's no given reason to believe what the author of the source -- one that is defending the fine tuning argument -- says. Also, the author misinterprets the idea of nature causing the constants to necessarily be so. "Necesity" is not logical necessity, it is physical necessity. (2) Pro drops the argument about volcanoes and black holes also being "fine tuned," and merely gives weight to the formation of life arbitrarily. (3) Pro is arguing that intelligent design and chance are the only options, as opposed to the 8.06 x 10^67 possibilities in cards that makes the ratio so low. But Pro doesn't justify this dichotomy. It is a bare assertion, and an appeal to authority. There's no given reason to believe Pro's source is actually correct about this. Michael Hurben argues that physical necessity is a major possibility, and Pro doesn't actually establish the probability of intelligent design. [7] Furthermore, Pro drops that the calculation of the probability of randomness is merely asserted, and there's no justification given. Pro doesn't give a strong reason to believe that the random tuning of constants is necessarily in such a low probability; just because the source says so doesn't mean it is so. Pro has to show the method for gaining such a calculation, justify that method, and thus justify the calculation, else it is a bare assertion/appeal to authority. EvolutionThose four are only the most common positions, not all the positions. Pro has to show that the four options are the only possible options, or it is a bare assertion. For instance, we could argue that all life was simultaneously caused along with the quark and electron, or the universe created itself as it is now and there has been little change, it being static except from an internal observer's point of view. Atheism doesn't rely on evolution at all. There is also an atheistic religion called "Raelism" that claims extraterrestrial, intelligent beings seeded life on Earth. Pro's source (Akin) isn't even claiming those four are the only options, only that they are the most common ones. We don't need to advocate evolution to win this debate, and Pro hasn't shown that we need to. ConclusionThere are three reasons why I (we) win this debate:First, all of Pro's arguments have been torn down, and it has been established that Pro has the burden of proof. The cosmological argument isn't sufficient since it only proves an external cause, not necessarily God, and fails to account for simultaneous causation. I've shown that the BGV theorem only applies in a universe that is expanding per all reference frames, but our universe isn't such a universe. I've also shown that the causal principle is nonsense and doesn't apply outside the universe. The first cause argument only shows a cause, not necessarily a cause of the universe, and I've refuted the causal principle. I've shown that the irreducible complexity argument is irrelevant, and have refuted the fine tuning argument. Second, we've erected our own case from Occam's razor, and showed that simultaneous quark-electron causation or the universe causing itself is far more likely than God as an explanation to the universe. Third, Pro hasn't actually proven that God exists even assuming all Pro's arguments hold. God was defined in Rd. 1 as "an intelligent being that is an omnipotent, omniscient cause of the universe." None of Pro's arguments actually shows that the cause/intelligent designer is "omnipotent" (i.e. all-powerful) or "omniscient" (i.e. all-knowing). Pro's burden is to prove that God exists. A mere intelligent cause of the universe is not God -- it is merely an intelligent cause of the universe. Until Pro establishes the link of their argument to God, they haven't fulfilled their burden. Therefore, vote Con. [6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...