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

Thanks con. Char limits are tough. CON: The first premise [of the KCA] is equal in both the extended & original, making my argument against the first premise equally valid. Your objection rests on the specific scenario of virtual particles possibly popping into existence without cause. This a weak refutation of the first premise because (1) Quantum mechanics are generally not well understood by pioneers of this field & (2) nothing we know ever pops into existence without a cause. Given that you only dispute the first premise on these grounds, (1) you are arguing that quantum mechanics are understood to know that they're uncaused & (2) things in our universe do not require a cause to begin to exist. Citing one specific example of a possibly uncaused event that experts in the field don't really understand & defies how we observe the world to behave is not a feasible refutation of the first premise. Others experts have difficulty in understanding QM too... "I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I Have Principles." - John Stewart Bell & "For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr http://en.wikiquote.org... [1] CON: You say that the virtual particles can exist without cause, then say that the space they happen in cannot. This is special pleading. No, I said that they are possibly uncaused & does not warrant a feasible refutation of the first premise for reasons given above & my extended K. argument focused on necessary preconditions for things to begin to exist. CON: Is there a purpose to [Richard Feyman's quote]? Yes it lessens the credibility of pointing to QM for specific exceptions to nullify known aspects of the universe like everything that begins to exist requires a cause. CON: Your "..." between "quantum states" and "primary state diffusion" leaves out a lot of important information...Nondifferentiable fluctuations=/=primary state diffusion. Section 3 and 4 of the paper deal with the actual part I was bringing up, spacetime fluctuating in and out of existence on a quantum level. ... This shows that you did not even fully read the paper, it is a theory about spacetime. It does not operate in spacetime..... You've listed chapters of the paper without giving any specific quotation/reference to believe that it operates outside of space-time. The first sentence states "...fluctuations in space-time..." You've just moved on to the next argument by telling me to read the paper. It's your job to provide the evidence within the context of the debate. And you initially gave credit to PSD not nondifferentiable fluctuations in absence of pre-existing space. The full text of the sourced quote didn't leave out any important info. The omitted part in the previous round that you'd criticized me for was " . . .resulting in a proposed new foundation for an existing alternative quantum theory . . ." Just an introductory lead-in to defining PSD. This is an attempt to dismiss my argument that quantum fluctuations occur in space-time, as was stated. CON: "You did not give any logical, empirical, or collectively intuitive evidence [of objective morality and I have shown your examples to be false.]" I did in R2. Which examples show them false? CON: What evidence exists that best fits morals being objective? See R2. CON: "Did I ever say all of them [rapists and murders] find it [rape and murder] moral/immoral? I only said some. Your conclusion was reached by following examples of some people who didn't admit rape and murder were immoral: [rejecting objective moral] (Joseph Stalin) ... [rejecting objective moral] (Asian Rape report) ... "This really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective." This study showed that the majority admitting moral fault did not have a subjective sense of morality and Stalin's quote wasn't relevant. This referenced study hurts your case & favors objective morality. CON: (R4): [You haven't applied Occam's razor, explain the supporting evidence, or provide sources for objective morality] Succinctly, Occam's Razor: " The simplest explanation is usually the right one. . . http://science.howstuffworks.com... Given my R2 support for objective morality, this is a simpler explanation for how people actually behave. Objective morality derives from our own innate moral sense of being & experiences but here's a few sources arguing that objective morality exists too: "[INTRO] I present an evolutionist approach to a rational, objective morality. . . [C] . . .morality could become objective. . . The many levels of morality, stretching up to the morality between societies, between states, would be integrated within the individual consciousness. " http://www.percepp.com... "[INTRO] My purpose in writing this is to argue for the existence of an objective morality based entirely on rational and scientific reasoning. . .[C p2] Moral laws are of the same nature as the laws of gravity and heat transfer." http://ar.vegnews.org... CON: [why do you assume that instructions specify constant atomic structure & behavioral patterns? When an object's atomic structure is manipulated, its behavior changes. The specific actualized combo's of complex structures shows natural element specified-complexity. These instructions or natural forces are the basis for behaving in their actualized way. CON: So, are you saying that DNA (which I believe falls under your argument) would have to come from prior intelligence? I would recommend reading this debate then. Providing a link to one of your prior debates isn't an argument, it needs to be explained in this debate. CON: "You have no supporting evidence for your first premise, only an assertion that it is true. My argument centered on the truth of my assertion that intelligence (as defined) only comes from prior intelligence. CON: "You see, you recognize that nature exhibits "intelligence", but jump to the conclusion that it must come from an intelligent causal agent without providing evidence to support that jump." Since my assertion is true, wouldn't you also say that if intelligence is only the result of prior intelligence, intelligence must most likely be the result of intelligence? (Rosetta Stone example.) "CON (R3): (2) [intelligence coming from prior intelligence shows an infinite regress + no evidence to support your claims "CON (R4): That is A. special pleading for a God, and B. violating the deductive argument I made in my first round of debates that you never made a rebuttal for. 1) Not special pleading because God is premised as transcendent of physical constraints, so it isn't a double standard. 2) you didn't specifically address which deductive argument you are referring to, but maybe the "Well who created God?" infinite regress. In R3 I've explained why *something* must necessarily exist eternally. CON: " And objective morality is shown to be false. Also, you ask for a "necessary" criteria to value a human being, but the existence of a NECESSARY criteria would make it no longer an extrinsic value. People can value others for any number of subjective reasons based on their own subjective morality. Your conclusion assumed that human beings can't deny objective evidence. Objective morality is also helped by your argument against it. Extrinsic Value: "Extrinsic value is also the portion of an item's worth that is assigned to it by external factors." http://www.investopedia.com... A valuation method is necessary if human beings are valuable. But is it intrinsic or extrinsic value? (See my R2 examples of why extrinsic criteria isn't necessary). CON: "You want me to source the definition of every single word that I use? . . .you did not source your important claims. . . Sources help validate arguments" (1) My arguments are logical, based on concepts of consciousness & 2) this was in reply to you saying that I broke the "source all claims rule" given in R1 but you're equally guilty of breaking it. CON: "Should I repost the evidence for the multiverse?" 1) Multiverse or PSD? By using more possibilities you discredit your trust in one. 2) (a) we only have evidence for one Big Bang producing cosmic background radiation so we can't know its expected uniformity (b) cosmic background radiation is caused by other known cosmic phenomena. (CON R4): [intelligence in our universe mirrors our own is] A claim that was made without evidence In R2 I said: "Cells in our body mirror this same specified-complexity. Cells function using their micro-organelles to carry out purposes specific to larger bodily functions, none of which are arbitrary in purpose, complexity, or function." Bill Gates is quoted as saying: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” http://www.goodreads.com... CON (R4): Except that one [sound] example is the [naturalistic] explanation I initially posted. The PSD that must exist within space-time as a necessary precondition of creating it? CON: Which is special pleading, unsupported by evidence, and disregards the deductive argument I initially made in my arguments [something existing eternally]. Rebutted above & explained in previous rounds. CON: a naturalistic explanation is supported by Occam"s Razor [ intelligent design requires too many assumptions]. I disagree. Objective morals better fit the data, intrinsic human worth doesn't require any necessary extrinsic criteria, God doesn't require contradictory necessary physical preconditions in order to exist, and intelligence only comes from intelligence. . CON: no evidence to support that they [natural laws] were created in the instance of the big bang Gravity is relative to physical phenomena according to Einstein's theory of relativity. My opponent accuses me of misrepresenting him but cites no examples. Thank you and I look forward to your conclusion.