General Theism Contains a True Proposition for God's Existence

(1) I think we're in agreement, and can move past including (1) moving forward. (2)Pro gives a definition of atheism which I reject. However, whether we disagree on terminology here is irrelevant. Pro's motion is: "General Theism Contains a True Proposition for God's Existence. " The burden is on him to show that. That is why he carries the full BoP, and I would like to point out to Pro that, even if we use his version of "agnostic", that position still does not affirm his resolution, and thus, if we windup with agnosticism, his argument fails, as it is a concrete positive claim. He is correct, to a certain extent, that simply demolishing his arguments does not, necessarily, prove that there is no god, or that "god exists" is a false claim. However, if he cannot prove his claim is true, the "default" position is that it is unsupported, and fails. If Pro had wished to create a debate wherein there was a shared BoP, he was free to do so. He could have sadi as much in R1. He did not. He cannot assert a shared BoP now. He must defend his proposition, and if he cannot provide an argument for why his proposition is true, his proposition fails. That is his job in this debate. If I were to have created a debate, the premise of which was "God does not exist", then the burden would be on me. I did not. Instead, Pro posted ad ebate, wherein he claimed to be able to establish that "General Theism Contains a True Proposition for God's Existence". I welcome him to do so. Finally, I'd like remind Pro and the readers of "Russel's Teapot": "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. "[1]And, indeed, until given good cause to think that the theistic God proposed by Pro exists, it is no different than the china teapot. (3)(Note: I adjusted the numbering a bit here. .. Pro had 3, followed by 3.2. It bugs me, so I have now created 3, under which is 3.1. This is not a dig on Pro, just an explanation for why I felt the need to renumber a bit) (3.1) The Leftow comments are simple assertions about the nature of God's agency assuming the proposition of personal agency is already accepted. They do nothing to give cause to think that the Cause IS a personal agent. The Cosmological Argument, as presented, does not give cause to establish ANY personal agency, or to have "intentional actions". The CA, as presented, does not state agency, only cause. To analogize: Stars are formed within nebulas. That is the "cause" of the star. But nebulas do not have an intention. [2]If Con would like to expand his Cosmological Argument to include propositions establishing agency to the Cause, that's fine; but as of now, there is nothing there for me to rebut about the "Cause" of the CA having agency. (3.2) Pro here complains of a "straw man". However, he himself misunderstands his own premise. Quantum fluctuations have no cause, which puts the lie to "everything that begins to exist has a cause. " Even Pro concedes that "particular cosmogonic models have been shown to purport the universe coming into being out of nothing via quantum vacuum (or other means). "He claims that "Quantum physics does not demonstrate "something coming from nothing" rather than a mere issue of quantum indeterminacy. To quote James D. Sinclair, ""Even on the indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the subatomic vacuum, which causes an indeterministic cause of their origination" [emphasis mine]Causes an indeterministic cause? His source is asserting that no cause is a cause, therefore there is a cause. Indeterminism is, by definition, the lack of a cause. Pro negates his own point while attempting to claim it doesn't. (3.3) My argument was that the unvierse has existed for all time, all of the time that we have. Anything "before" that point is beyond our present comprehension. Pro doesn't seem to contest this, except to say that he's asserting something before that. (3.4) Con seems to be appealing to a "common sense" argument here, that there cannot be an infinite regress. I agree that the two options seem to be, as far as we can determine, either an infinite regress, or a finite beginning. But knowing that there are two options does not mean that therefore there is a finite beginning. We know that our universe, and its time, originated approximately 15 billion years ago. What existed "before" then, or how time functioned "before" then, is not something we presently have any grounds to make assertions about. One can argue that an infinite regress is illogical, but it's no more illogical than something having agency yet being "outside time", or even something "outside the universe". There can be no change without time, and certainly the change from "no universe" to "universe" is a change, and we cannot comprehend anything which is "outside the universe". (4)I conclude by noting that, at absolute most, thus far Pro has given a case for a "First Cause". He has given no reason to believe any of the necessary facets of "God" that he posited in R1. If he fails to establish them, then the motion must fail. I feel that I have adequately rebutted his "first cause" arguments, however, if he does not spend some time on estbalishing the other qualities he proposed in R1, the motion must fail for lack of argument from Pro. I wish him the best of luck, and hope that he makes a case for the aspects he has asserted next round. With that, I turn it over to him. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://science.howstuffworks.com...