The KCA is ridiculous.

In what follows now, I will summarise this debate and show why Pro has unsuccessfully defended his claims and arguments. Unimaginable PowerfulPro said that to say that something unimaginable powerful caused the universe doesn't make sense. Why? Pro never answers that. Pro simply just made a baseless claim and then moved on without supporting it, something which he have done in this entire debate. But indeed, to say that something unimaginable powerful caused the universe is not based on assertion, it is rather based on common sense. I think everybody would agree that whatever caused something as big and amazing as the universe must have been extremely powerful. What else would it be, weak? We are now talking about the whole universe, something which is bigger than what we humans can even imagine, and something which contains billions of planets and galaxies. To say that what caused this was not something unimaginable powerful, would be nonsensical. Pro also said that it is possible that humans can create the universe. If we are going to talk possibility, then pretty much everything is possible. The fact of the matter is that no evidences have been given by Pro to prove this claim, not even that it is possible that humans can create a universe. This claim must be dismissed. William Lane CraigPro made some attacks on WLC. I'm not going to give an answer to these attacks, because all these attacks on WLC has nothing to do with the topic of this debate. However, I am going to answer one thing. As you can remember, I quoted WLC saying: "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. " Now, Pro said that this is just an assertion because I have not supported it. Well, since Pro seems to have a difficulty with this quote, I will again quote William Lane Craig where he explains his position: "The difficulty that arises in the case of the cause of the beginning of the universe is that we seem to have a peculiar case of state/event causation: the cause is a timeless state but the effect is an event that occurred at a specific moment in the finite past. Such state/event causation doesn't seem to make sense, since a state sufficient for the existence of its effect should have a state as its effect. There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. "[1]So Pro is completely wrong in saying that this is just an assertion, because WLC gives us good reasons as to why we should believe that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. To give reasons to support something doesn't sound like an assertion to me. Also, remember the apple analogy which Pro presented. I clearly refuted this analogy in my previous round when I made it clear that an event cause (i. e. , a non-personal entity) cannot account for the beginning of the universe. As everybody can clearly see from Pro's previous and last round, he has not successfully defended his apple analogy. In fact, he almost says nothing on this. He only said "My apple analogy was used because of how poorly explained this point was", and then he just moved on to another topic. We can rightly say that Pro's apple analogy has been conceded. EnergyPro said that energy existed before the big bang. Did he give any evidences to support this claim? No. Pro also said again that energy can never be created and destroyed. Recall that I asked in my previous round, "But even if we grant that this is true (that energy can never be created and destroyed), how would it damage the KCA or show that it is ridiculous? " Once again, Pro did not answer this question and thus, this whole energy nonsense fails. Pro said that it is possible that energy could create a universe. Not only does this make no sense, but no evidences have been given to support this claim, not even that it is possible that energy could create a universe. Lastly, remember that Pro claimed that energy is timeless, space less, and immaterial. I asked Pro to support this claim with some evidences, but he surely has not. In fact, he refutes his own point by quoting Richard Feynman who made it very clear that we have no knowledge of what energy is. How can you say that energy is that and this, and at the same time admit that we have no knowledge of what energy is? Pro's case is incoherent at best. Furthermore, even if we grant that energy is timeless, space less, and immaterial, this wouldn't really prove anything. Being timeless, space less, and immaterial is not alone enough to make you the cause of the universe. As I have explained and showed with good reasons, the cause of the universe must also be personal and powerful. Energy cannot be said to be this, especially not personal. The UniversePro said that nothing can exist outside of our universe. Again, no evidences have been given whatsoever to support this assertion. Pro himself agreed that the universe had a cause, but that God wasn't this cause. So how can he say that nothing can exist outside of the universe? Does Pro believe that whatever caused the universe existed in the universe itself before it even caused it, or that it existed in the universe at the same time as it caused it? If so, then Pro is believing something which is impossible. Whatever caused the universe must be outside the universe, because you have to first be outside of the universe in order to cause it. I made this clear in my previous round as some readers may notice, but it seems like I apparently have to make this fact clear again. Pro said that if God exists outside of a universe, he cannot possibly be physical. This is true, but what is Pro's point? That God therefore cannot exist or be the cause of the universe? If so, then this claim must be completely dismissed because no reasons whatsoever has been to given to show why this is true. Pro said that something immaterial and not in our universe can't intervene with our universe. But even if we grant that this is true, how would it therefore follow that God could not have created the universe? I also asked this in my previous round and not surprisingly, Pro has once again not given any answer or explanation on this, nor has he given us any good reasons as to why we should believe that this is true. Pro moved on to say that the KCA must be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence. This is confusing. What does it mean to say that the KCA must be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence? In what way must it be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence? Also, why must the KCA be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence? Pro doesn't answer any of this, and to do that is important. As it now stands, Pro doesn't give me much to work on. And nor has Pro given any evidences to prove this claim. Lastly, Pro asked where my proofs are for supporting my belief that God is eternal. As I said previously, there must exist an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. I, as well as most other Theists, would say that this uncaused being is God. After all, what else then God is believed to be uncaused (i. e. , eternal)? Pro has not successfully defended his case that the KCA is ridiculous. Pro's arguments have been refuted and most of his claims have been shown to be completely unwarranted. I therefore urge the readers to vote Con. _______Sources[1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...