God (Probably) Exists

Thanks to Aithlin for his great concluding argument! This was definitely a great debate; I have learned quite a bit through the contemplation that I had to put into refuting his arguments, and I sincerely hope that he has gained something, as well! Now, onto my final refutations :D== KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ==1. Beginning to Exist"Con dodges attempting to justify his previously unjustified assumption [that beginning to exist results in an increase of mass/energy], by stating that it is supposedly 'common sense'. "I cited common sense because it is rather difficult to explain such a basic, fundamental concept. .. it's like trying to define the word "and". Nonetheless, I will try. .. If something BEGINS to exist, it is implied by definition that it did not exist prior to that; that there was *nothing* prior to that. Thus, when "something" comes into existence, it is coming into existence over "nothing", and since "something" consists of mass/energy, it coming into existence obviously does result in an increase in mass/energy. I fail to see how any Pro has said so far refutes the above logic. Our only choice is to accept the common sense notion that something beginning to exist requires an increase in mass/energy. By extension of the logic provided in Round 2, this means that we have never seen anything begin to exist before; it is illogical make assumptions about what is required for something to come into existence (i. e. causality) if we have absolutely no experience of something coming into existence. 2. Cosmological ConstantPro claims that things CAN come into existence where something is already there. However, as I've stated before, such an occurrence would no longer represent something "beginning to exist"; it would represent a *change* (like the example of virtual particles I provided). I have already shown that something "beginning to exist", by definition, implies that it is coming from nothing. It is logically impossible to witness things beginning to exist within our universe because the entirety of space within our universe is already occupied by the cosmological constant, and things can only begin to exist where there is nothing, as shown before. Thus, the observation that we never witness objects spontaneously pop into existence cannot be used to infer the truth of the KCA's first premise.3. Metaphysical Intuitions"Con’s statements seem verificationist, which is discredited. "I am not arguing that empirical observation is the ONLY way to know something, as logical positivists would argue. .. I am merely stating that we have *absolutely* no experience which such things, so the fundamental premises of Pro's logic are unfounded (i. e. that nothing must have no properties or potentiality). ". .. we do know that nothing has no properties, and that it has no potentiality by definition. "Pro argues that the definition of "nothing" necessarily entails its complete lack of properties. Let's ignore, for now, the fact that actual nothingness does not necessarily have to conform to our definitions of it, and follow Pro's logic. .. "No properties" includes "no constraints", yet Pro is inadvertently attempting to place the constraint of "being unable to produce something" on nothingness. Pro is declaring that nothingness has no properties while simultaneously assigning properties to it! Pro's own logic is self-refuting; we cannot apply our limited metaphysical intuitions to such a radically and fundamentally different plane of existence, especially since it lacks the presence of Space and Time, which essentially form the very basis of human perception/cognition, and, by extension, our intuitions. == FINE-TUNING / TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT == 1. Physical NecessityLast round, I argued that the laws of nature could plausibly have been necessary (i. e. could not have been different), drawing an analogy to the laws of mathematics to demonstrate my point that necessary laws exist. My opponent seems to be challenging the very idea of necessary laws by arguing that even the laws of mathematics could have been different. "All mathematical systems are based on axioms – unproven, unprovable assumptions… different assumptions will entail different things and produce different mathematical systems . "However, he only demonstrates this dependence on axioms through geometry, which is actually just an application of mathematics, rather than the actual raw form of mathematics: number operations. Number operations, which form the actual basis of math, do not require any sort of dependence on axioms. For example, what "unproven assumptions" are involved in the statement "2 + 3 = 5"? There aren't any assumptions there; it is simply an unchangeable, necessary fact of reality. It is impossible for "2 + 3 = 6" to be true no matter HOW you look at it. There are no underlying assumptions that can be tweaked to make it true. Thus, we draw the conclusion that the laws of mathematics are, indeed, necessary laws. The point of all that was just to show via example that necessary laws exist. It seems perfectly plausible that if some abstract laws forming the basis of reality are necessarily the way they are, then the physical constants governing reality also operate in the same way. However, PRO is making the claim that those constants *could* have been different; it is HIS burden of proof to demonstrate that to be true. Seeing that he hasn't done so (instead attempting to flip the BOP onto me), we must assume that Pro has not sufficiently attacked physical necessity as an explanation of fine-tuning. Since physical necessity remains a viable explanation, design is no longer the only explanation, and the teleological argument fails to prove that God probably exists.2. Multiverse TheoryUnfortunately, due to my novice status in terms of knowledge on this subject, combined with not having enough time to put into thorough research, I am going to have to drop this contention. However, this by no means that I'm conceding the FTA as a whole. My physical necessity contention still undermines the FTA. == CONCLUSION ==The KCA fails because its first premise is completely unwarranted; it is totally devoid of empirical evidence, and attempts to indirectly affirm it via logic have their own fatal flaws. The FTA fails because it is dependent on design being the ONLY viable explanation of fine-tuning, and I have shown that physical necessity is an equally viable explanation of it. Thus, neither of Pro's arguments successfully affirms the resolution that God probably exists. Thanks to Aithlin for the debate and to any/all voters!