The Cause of the Universe is Plausibly Personal if the KCA is True

I thank Aperion for their reply.[Corrections]If Pro can have just the mere possibility of a supernatural timeless personal cause, I as the Con can have just the mere possibility of a *supernatural timeless personal cause.* That should be supernatural timeless non personal cause[Burden of Proof]It wasn't clear that was a condition of acceptance rather than an argument within the debate. There is background to this debate, this debate came about because of various claims by Aperion about causation concerning the universe. Specifically if the universe has a cause what can and can't be the case concerning its causation. [Supernatural timeless personal cause vs Supernatural timeless non personal cause]Pro keeps arguing against a natural cause of the universe. Yes I get it Pro, we are debating the cause of the universe ergo by definition "supernatural". I am not suggesting a "natural" cause.[Appeal of agent/personal causation in the face of ignorance]Pro asked the question...""What's so special about universes that has this natural timeless entity creating it?"My apologies, I thought the question was what's so special about universes that a supernatural non personal, timeless cause creates it. My answer is ...I don't know. Now what conclusions do we draw from this established ignorance ? 1) Therefore it does not exist 2) Therefore it may or may not existTo conclude that therefore it does not exist would be an argument from ignorance. As I said before..."There is an important logical point here, ignorance about non personal causation does not equal therefore a personal cause. Yes this logical point also extends to questions about the causation in regards to the universe"Also note that the lack of content charge against a cause that is supernatural, timeless & non personal doesn't justify therefore lets conclude the supernatural cause is personal. Pro asks the question..."On the other hand, if a cause is immaterial, timeless and non-personal, how then does it differ from nothing at all, much less a coherent causal power"Because as a supernatural "cause" it would be something and as such would not be nothing. Pro claims that a supernatural cause that is timeless, non personal, immaterial is incoherent, I reject this charge.A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true. [1]Consider the following propositions...1) A supernatural cause that is personal, timeless, immaterial2) A mind existing without a brain3) "A mind having access to all his thoughts at once in a timeless state."4) God is timeless without the universe, God is temporal with the universe And assuming that God = the mind Pro is talking about...5) A timeless mind that is not dependent on a brain having access to all it thoughts at once in a timeless state that is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe6) A supernatural cause that is is non personal, timeless, immaterialNow Pro seems to have no problems with the logical coherency of 1,2,3,4,5 But when its comes to 6) Pros throws his hands up, No no no he says, its logical incoherent, disregard this non sense, no content, nothing to see here people. I could claim that a timeless mind that is not dependent on a brain having access to all it thoughts at once in a timeless state that is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe is "logically incoherent" too ya know. Pros claims here about what is and isn't logically coherent is merely asserted to suit their own purposes.[Collective Properties of the Universe]Pro misunderstands Hitchens here, the assumption isn't about the existence of things like eyes, beauty, the Ebola virus. The assumption comes into play when people just assume its the product of intent.[Intelligent Design ?]Neil Tyson brings up the following...Earth 1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct[Humans]1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children. [2]Does this evidence suggest that we are the product of some extra cosmic plan ? No. [Argument from fine tuning/life permitting universe]Peter Slezak explains..."The immense improbability of some event is often a good argument for an underlying cause or intelligent purpose and design...but not always, it depends on the context and background theory for that context""David Hume argued in his dialogues concerning natural religion, we have no background theory for how universes can come into being, the way we have for how writing comes into being. What alternative theory has scientific support that would makes chance a worse explanation in this case. How can you compare the entire universe to how a watch or house is made ? that is David Humes question."...&..."So unless you know something else about the background the mere fact of the improbability on its own doesn't tell you anything that is contrary to the possibility of chance." [3]Pro doesn't have the background information necessary to make a probability judgment here, Pro just appeals to a fallacy of improbability. Also notice how he just asserts that a life permitting universe is more likely if it was chosen to be that way. I doubt he can justify that, he can only appeal to something like, the odds are so astronomical !!![Observer selection effects/Life permitting universe]We live in a life permitting universe, if we didn't then we wouldn't exist, and that's the catch. You can't infer a necessary precondition was "chosen" to be like that, just because unless that necessary pre-condition wasn't the case you wouldn't exist, even if the odds are astronomical. This is the kind of assumption Hitchens warned about and fallacy of improbabilities that Slezak explained.[There is no temporal gap between a timeless cause and it's effect]Pros bowling ball analogy isn't applicable because the cause that is the ball in pros analogy is eternal in the sense of having endless duration producing its endless duration effect of the depression in the couch. But we are talking about a timeless cause, and whether its personal or not giving rise to an effect that is timefull, either way the timeless cause can't exist before (temporally) before the effect. [Unsubstantiated claims about the impossibilities of a timeless non personal cause]There is no dilemma here until Pro proves that a timeless cause must be personal to give rise to a timefull effect. [Occams razor]Occams Razor enjoins us to not add any unnecessary assumptions. Even if the universe has a supernatural, timeless, immaterial cause, it would be a violation to add a "will" or "persona agency" until it is shown necessary.[The brain & mind connection]Pro here just asserts dualism, and what God is and can do. Just assertions. Pros analogy of the piano player who wants to play his piano but can't because of the missing keys is inept as Sam Harris explains..."You damage area's of the brain, faculties are lost, it's not as if everyone with brain damage has their soul perfectly in tact and they just can't get the words out, everything about your mind can be damaged by damaging the brain" [4]I look forward to Pros reply.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oEl9kVl6KPc#![3] www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqqESXhZAqE[4] www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juriylw7B0