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

Con: [radioactive decay is = a beginning uncaused existence like virtual particles]This is not an analogous argument. Radioactive decay is random but =/= having an uncaused existence. "Radioactive decay occurs in unstable atomic nuclei. .. " . https://www.iop.org... con: [According to Richard Feynman, quantum theory denies logic & can't be applied to common sense approaches to the origins of our universe. QM having different rules =/= less credible. The universe had a quantum level beginning so address it with QM rules] I'm not saying QM isn't applicable, but that Richard Feynman's own quote of "I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics” lessens the credibility of pointing to virtual particles as a specific exception of "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Virtual particles may not have a cause, but isn't a feasible rebuttal & necessary preconditions, such as space, are still required! con: [you haven't responded to my R1 argument by Stephen Hawking] This argument shows a misunderstanding of the concept of God. God is premised as being transcendent of physical restraints. This is a better logical argument: "(1) Causes must precede their effects in time (2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe) (3) Time began. (4) Therefore, the universe must have a cause transcendent of time(5) Theism requires that God, transcendent of time, must be the cause of the universe (6) The universe has a cause transcendent of time. (7) Therefore, theism is logical. The only illogical option is to assume physical phenomena is responsible for the creation of time without any of the necessary preconditions in order to create it! con: "I did QUOTE what the paper said in my initial arguments, showing exactly what I am claiming. I also am still giving credit to PSD, I just pointed out that your quote was a misrepresentation. Your quote was about nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD, yet you attributed it to PSD. " Please check my opponent's source. Tell me if nondifferential fluctuations, as the basis for PSD, occur in space-time or not. . http://arxiv.org... - Con: "[The omitted section] Which shows that what was being talked about was the nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD" Not true. The first sentence began with "Nondifferentiable equations. .. " and the entire omitted part was: ". . . resulting in a proposed new foundation for an existing alternative quantum theory. . . " Again, I ask the voters to check for themselves if the omitted piece regards crucial info such as "nondifferentiable fluctuations" as my opponent is claiming. I've also rebutted this in R4. Initially I omitted part of this quote in R3 in order to save char. space. con: "The fluctuations OF spacetime that are part of PSD do NOT happen in spacetime, other quantum fluctuations do and are explained by PSD. " My opponent has had every opportunity last round to reference any quotation of the paper supporting this assertion especially since I specifically criticized him on this in R4. He has failed to do so. con: "(1) People act with different moral standards. (2) There does not exist a single moral that every person agrees if it is right or wrong. (3) Morals are not objective. " Again, this conclusion assumes that people cannot deny objective evidence. Also, YOU are making the assertion that ALL morals are subjective. Therefore, if ONE instance of objective morality is more likely than not, objective morality is the better assumption and NOT ALL morals are subjective. Given that more than half of the rapists admitted moral fault (which you've never rebutted), this supports an objective morality point-of-view because they'd have no reason whatsoever to admit this if all morality is subjective. On the other hand, if rape is objectively wrong, the incentive to not admit moral fault is to claim that they aren't responsible and possibly receive a lesser sentence or reduce their own guilt for committing such actions. con: How does [this study show] it [that all morality being subjective is false]? If even a single person does not find a "moral wrong" to be a moral wrong it shows objective morality to be false. Again, your conclusion banks on the resolution that objective evidence cannot be ignored despite having an incentive to ignore it. Even one instance of an objective moral shows that not all morality is subjective. Given that the majority of rapists admitted moral fault, how on earth would this study logically support that all morality is subjective? CON: "It seems that you have destroyed your whole argument. The link you provided says that objective morality can exist from an evolutionary standpoint. [even if I concede this point, it hurts your case. ]" To the contrary, the reason I had referenced these studies from a (naturalistic) standpoint, is to point out that all morality being subjective is inconceivable even to many proponents of naturalism. All morality being subjective is not intuitive, logical, or empirically supported according to my R2 arguments & it makes logical sense to provide an argument for a developed objective sense of morality. Objectives don't exist in an objectiveless existence. Morality is purpose-driven. If no objective purpose exists, simply, no objective morality can logically exist either. CON: "All this argument is [specified-complexity] is a huge argument of special pleading [without evidence]" You've not rebutted the example of specified-complexity exhibited by cells in R4. You can't say I've made an argument without evidence. Intelligence (specified-complexity) is not an argument of special pleading. The evidence that specified-complexity only comes from a prior intelligent causal agent has been advanced by my Rosetta Stone example in numerous rounds. Would we ever assume that something exhibiting qualities of intelligence was more likely not created by prior intelligence? No. CON: "I never said people cannot deny their own morality (I do not say objective morality since there is no evidence for it existing), but that does not mean morality is objective. I have pointed out the flaw in your reasoning above. " I dispute this on the grounds that (1) objective morality is more likely given the evidence put forth in R2, and (2) you've failed to recognize that *one* instance of an objective moral destroys your assumption that all morality is subjective. CON: "There does need to be a valuation method for there to be value, but there does not need to be a necessary valuation method. People can value others for their own reasons, meaning that there is a valuation method, but not a necessary valuation method. " This isn't what you've said in the previous round. In R4 you'd said that no extrinsic criteria valuation method is necessary for human beings because necessary valuation is contrary to extrinsic value criteria. After reading my rebuttal, I'm assuming that you've recalled a valuation must occur given that human beings are valuable and reconstructed your argument. People can value others for their own reasons but this DOES NOT rebut my point that humans treat each other as having intrinsic value. Extrinsic value can be added to an intrinsically valuable object but this does not mean that value had not previously existed intrinsically. My opponent never rebuts my R2 examples. "Most of your arguments presented have special pleading. My opponent makes this assertion without reference & previous allegations of special pleading have been rebutted. [How are they exclusive? There can both exist a multiverse and have a PSD based universe. ] The hypothesized method of causation is entirely different. PSD is a universe created via quantum phenomena, and a multiverse is the creation of the universe via the collision of a previously existing universe. Source? [Evidence of one big bang producing cosmic background radiation so we can't know its expected uniformity & cosmic background radiation is caused by other known cosmic phenomena] We only know of one universe, so I'm assuming the source you've requested is for cosmic background radiation "Radiation in space takes the form of subatomic particles from the sun as well as from sources in the Milky Way galaxy and beyond. " . http://www.space.com... "Scientists had predicted that it should be evenly distributed" There are other possible established reasons for uneven distribution. Spacial fluctuations of radiation can occur through intergalactic gas. . http://adsabs.harvard.edu... "Except that PSD does not have to exist within spacetime, that was you misrepresenting the paper. " Again, no specific quote or reference is given to believe otherwise when the paper explicitly states ". .. in space-time. .. " & despite having the opportunity to rebut. Where is your evidence for this [intelligence only coming from intelligence]? Everything in our observable universe. From making predictions about archaeological finds like the Rosetta stone to cellular organisms transferring information to new cells. "My opponent also decided to misrepresent my arguments and ignore the others. " You've never cited any misrepresentation of your arguments despite my request in R4 for you to do so. I've also rebutted all contentions you've put forth. I'd like to point out that my opponent never rebutted his disagreement with "logic is evidence. Do you disagree? " contention I've put forth in R3 in response to sourcing of my logical arguments. He also drops his contention with the "source all claims rule" ended in R4. I urge the voters to closely examine the arguments and explore the sources put forth in this debate. My opponent continuously made unsupported conclusions from his sources or assertions that've already rebutted in previous rounds. Examine the evidence put forth & see which is more likely. Shared BoP.