God Exists

Thank you, Con for your response as you too have been an excellent opponent. However your last round did somewhat disappoint me. As I read the argument and then referenced your sources, I saw that most of all your work was copied and pasted. Nothing was really in your own words. Like you said before, I’m not here to debate your sources. Just copying them and pasting them into the debate doesn’t really make it any less your source due to you having no real input. I understand if you were short on time, but please give some more personal thought into the next round. Since you completely dropped the topic of incoherent attributes after my last rebuttal I’m assuming you have conceded the point and are moving onto just disproving my positive evidences for God’s existence. If you have conceded to the attribute of being omniscient is not incoherent, and want to move onto other attributes, I would like to tell you that they are all easily refuted with clear definitions of the words. I will defend the KCA argument as I think it to be one of the strongest arguments for God’s existence.KCAP1: You argue that premise 1 is invalid due to observable things coming into existence from nothing. Your evidence then lies in the quantum vacuum. The problem here though Con, is that the vacuum is not comparable to nothingness. The vacuum has a fluctuation of energy, and energy is something. The energy fluctuates and can convert into a quantum particle, but then is almost immediately converted back to energy. There are observable properties within the vacuum which is contradictory to nothingness. Nothingness has no properties, it has no energy, there are no fluctuation vacuums, but it simply is just nothing. So to compare these vacuums of fluctuating energy to nothingness is dishonesty to science.You supply this quote provided by your second source; “In fact, the truth of the matter is that these vacuum fluctuations are possibly what caused the Big Bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility—the possibility that the universe is a gigantic vacuum fluctuation.”This would indicate that a vacuum fluctuation large enough, and with enough energy would exist, and is what creates our universe over and over again. Two problems are present with this logic. The universe is not self-eliminating like we see the quantum particle almost immediately doing once it has borrowed enough energy from the vacuum to manifest. If the universe perhaps needs to contract back down to a singularity for this to happen we run into another road block. The universe has expanded so far now that gravity could not pull it back to a singularity. We are now an ever expanding body of space-time with all matter being pushed further and further out. NASA agrees and states current evidence promotes an expanding forever universe. [1]The theorem developed by Hawkings and Penrose in the 70’s was the beginning death of an oscillating universe idea, and wrote “almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.” [2] The theory would only work on an infinite time scale in order to counter a causer (God). It would have to not have an absolute beginning. If it had a beginning then what caused it? But again here we run into the infinity in reality dilemma in that we should have an infinitely old fluctuation pattern causing the universe into existence. The fluctuating vacuum can manifest in any part of space thereby potentially causing universes to pop up anywhere and everywhere. This combined with an infinitely old vacuum would have an infinite number of universes spawning from anywhere and everywhere. Of course none of this has ever been witnessed as we only have one universe relatively young, and nothing has ever, EVER been witnessed in absolute nothingness. So in light of these rebuttals I think it is absolutely safe to say that premise 1 is still completely logical and consistent with reality. The premise holds.P2: Con here states premise 2 is invalid because the Kalam states the universe had a cause, and then that Theists say the cause is God. He only offers one alternative, which fortunately enough is easily refuted. M-theory is yet another infinite in reality fallacy. There can’t be an infinite number of actual things; therefore there aren’t an infinite number of universes or other worlds. If our universe did come from a large network of universes (multiverse), or other dimensions of universes (multi-world), and these alternatives are not infinite, then how did they get their beginning? Multiverse or universe, the question is the same; what was the cause? Getting closer to God aren’t we?Premise 2 holds.Cons 3 QuestionsCon gives us 3 questions at the end of his round to answer. They follow:1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?a. No. Numbers and sets do not begin to exist. They exist necessarily as God does. Their existence is not contingent on other realities, and need no cause. They are exempted from causing the universe in that numbers and sets can’t cause anything alone. They simply just are in order to quantify and collaborate. God is the only non-beginning causer that can fit the bill. 2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?a. No. The logic applies to things that begin to exist. They don’t have to be temporal in that God created the temporal universe. How then does this not disprove God in that he is infinite, yet infinity cannot exist in reality? This is just a misunderstanding at the surface level of Gods nature. God exists transcendent from time, in that He created time; therefore there is no time that can be attributed to him. His existence is not quantitatively infinite, but rather qualitative. He exists necessarily, and his eternal nature is qualitatively infinite, even though there is nothing actually quantitative about it. 3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?a. This is the taxicab fallacy at its finest. This is a line of defense used in that Atheists accept the causal argument of everything except for everything itself. There is no reason to believe that just because the universe is all encompassing of known reality for it to be exempt from the premise. This world had a cause, our solar system had a cause, our galaxy had a cause, and this universe had a cause. The universe is a member of the set of things that began to exist, and therefore needs a cause.I now turn this debate back to you Con and await your response. References [1] NASA Big Bang 101. See http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...[2] Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.