The Existence of God

Readers, my opponent delivers a somewhat rambling third argument, which does not touch on the two most fundamental rebuttals I have presented. I will present these again at the end of my argument. Responses: >> "Id say quantum events are kind of like the coin landing on its side when you flick it. As in the can occur when the conditions are there but it is highly unlikely." Quantum events may be unlikely, but they DO happen. >> "What would there be for time to govern without space. Infinity? Time governs finite existence." Time doesn't GOVERN anything - it's just a measuring tool. Would you say that if there's no longer anything to measure that the concepts of height and width simply disappear? If everything disappeared, there would be nothing, but we would still be able to say there has been nothing for a long time. >> "But it is not gravity that warps time and space." Spacetime is warped by the presence of mass; the warping itself is gravity. Spacetime itself is curved such that any object entering the curve is affected. As the universe begins to contract, it will begin to fold up as it becomes more and more curved. >> "You cannot pick out one patch of a vacuum and follow its movement." Sure you can - all movement is relative since there's no "center" of the universe. If I pick out a specific patch of space I can easily describe how it's moving... >> "If you believe that nothing is infinite, then how can you not believe in a first cause?" Why can't I believe that the universe has just always existed? You haven't presented an argument that describes why the universe cannot be an infinite phenomenon. Your first cause argument has failed... >> "So it had no cause because it needed no cause." But what makes it different from other causes such that it needed no cause? THAT'S the point you have failed to address and why the first cause argument has failed. >> "Look at [the Fibonacci sequence] and tell me that it doesnt point to a grand designer." We're discussing first cause, not intelligent design... But the intelligent design argument fails on its own irreducibly complex statement - remove God and the argument becomes less complex. If it points to anything, it points to the fact that the building blocks of life are all similar. Which really isn't that surprising, considering everything on the planet shares common pieces of DNA. ****************************************************************** Readers, here is the point my opponent has failed to address concerning his first cause argument: If the first cause is infinite and acausal, you have already committed yourself to something that does not follow the rules of causality. Once you make this move, you abandon one of the fundamental principles that your argument was founded on (causality). The first cause argument cannot stand because it is based on a form of argument that uses a premise only when it is convenient. When one makes the first cause argument by abandoning causality, the proposition cannot stand. If the first cause had no cause, then my opponent must provide some sort of explanation of WHY it had no cause. Abandoning causality destroys the entire infinite regress notion. Your argument basically asks the voters to support a notion where the premise of your argument ("Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes") is suddenly abandoned for one instance of the very thing your premise is in regards to. Consider: All E are C. At least one E is not C. Your argument does not stand. NEGATED.