God in nature (intelligent design) [Version 2]

Thanks to Pro for his post; I'll respond.(1) Clarification of Pro's argument from the resurrection (a) I'll accept that reasoning. Let us continue with it, then!(2) The Kalaam Cosmological Argument (a) Pro's rebuttal (ai) Pro states that my example of the virtual particles coming into existence uncaused is falsified; he asserts that they are actually coming into existence by the cause of energy that "fluctuates spontaneously". I must admit that I have researched this further and will be forced to concede this point if Pro can provide a source for it. Until a source is provided, I'll dismiss it without evidence. Why? Because that which can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence by the law of Hitchens' Razor.[1] (aii) Let us grant the benefit of the doubt, however.[a] Let us assume that these particles are actually caused. All one has to do is back up a level. What causes these spontaneous fluctuations in energy? If they are spontaneous, then by one definition, they have no apparent cause[2]. Therefore, the most logical conclusion to draw is that they are uncaused. (b) Further evidence (bi) Atomic radioactive decay. The decay rate from certain radioactive particles is random when in small enough numbers.[3] To put that in another sense; the start of the decay is uncaused. This is another example of how things (e.g. a process) can begin to exist with no cause. Hence, the first premise is refuted. To finish with [(bi)], allow me to give a quote: "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics at Truman State University, Kirksville"[4] ((This was just for flavour and finish, and it is not an argument from authority)) (c) Further critique of the Kalaam Argument (ci) Begging the question. This is a fallacy where a premise is used as the conclusion and vice versa[5]. Does the Kalaam argument beg the question? There is an implication given by the Kalaam argument when it states: "Everything that begins to exist[...]". It implies that reality can be divided into items that begin to exist (henceforth called BE) and items that do not (henceforth called NBE). So, according to Pro, what doesn't begin to exist? God. OK. If we accept that, what else falls into that sub-set? Here's the problem:If only God falls into NBE, then we can logically set out the argument as follows: Everything except God has a cause. The universe is not God. Therefore, the universe has a cause. If you argue that from this, we can draw the conclusion that "God exists", then you beg the question as you state that NBE is synonymous with God. Does Pro have a way out? Well, yes; he has one. If Pro can demonstrate how something else fits into the NBE sub-set then the question isn't necessarily begged. However, since he hasn't done this, the Kalaam argument begs the question; the Kalaam argument is illogical.(3) The Moral Argument (a) Re-arranging of the argument. Thanks, I'm glad we can use this version. (b) Pro's rebuttal (bi) "Moral actions are good because they comply with God's nature". This is Pro's effective response to try and answer the dilemma. This is a way of saying: "God's nature makes things good". In other words: "God's actions determine the moral values of goodness. If God does it, then it's good." So, we must ask ourselves: "Why does he do these things?" Now we arrive right back where we started. My opponent's response, while admirable, is taken for granted. We agree. But it is because of this assumption that we arrive at the dilemma! If God does something, then it is good. {Fine}Why does he do these things? (1) Because they are good to do; so God does them (2) Because "he feels like it" (or its equivalent, relevant phrase).The dilemma hasn't been solved. (bii) The relevance of Pro's remaining point for the moral argument. While I do appreciate Pro's taken his time to type up a response; I must state that everything that isn't the above sentence (see [(bi)]) is a red herring[6]. The things Pro explains by his nature are agreed, but that is how we come to the dilemma. It is like me asking whether to buy ketchup or BBQ sauce ((a true dilemma faced by millions, by the way!)), and Pro explaining how I got to the store. Yes, it's useful, but not relevant.(4) The Argument from the Resurrection (a)Note to the audience and voters: In the previous round, I stated that: "i) The Jews stole the body - motivations include revenge and a concept of duty". I did not mean the Jews! I meant his followers. The Jews would be one of the last people to expect! I do apologise, but my opponent posted his response before noting my confession of my error. This has now been rectified. (Please see the comments section for more details). (b) Pro's rebuttals (bi) Establishing the fact of the empty tomb (bia) Pro gives three assertions that back up the empty tomb assertion. I must admit; it is quite convincing and I will be forced to concede this point. ((Good job, Pro!)) From now on, I continue on the basis that Jesus' tomb was empty. (bib) However, I must clarify that this is determined from Pro's points [~1, ~2,] and [~3]. The use of the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning. It is like me declaring the existence of Atlantis because I have a book on it! Of course, if there are external sources that are found outside of the Bible (e.g. Paul's letters), then that holds some sway. But Paul's letters in the Bible itself are dismissible. Noting that, the "evidence from archaeology" I will concede once I see a source. (bii) On my examples (biia) The Jews stole the body. I have already covered this blunder on my part above. Therefore, I concede this fact and instead give the example of: i) The followers stole the body - for the same motivations. (biib) The precaution. This I will expand on now, as requested. The precaution the Romans could have taken is that, they were against the early versions of Christianity[7]. Mostly because it was originally a branch of Judaism. If the followers numbered in the hundreds (my opponent notes the alleged 500, at least), they were going to fight a losing battle in terms of faith. A precaution was to hide the body after it had been placed in the tomb (in and out) to help protect against the followers stealing the body. If this did happen, which is a possibility we have to entertain, it certainly backfired ((look at us here!)), but it does stop the "risen from the dead" claim. (biic) Was the body in the tomb in the first place? Indeed, Pro has done this. I concede this point. (biii) Establishing the fact of Jesus sightings (biiia) 1~ Paul's letter to the Corinthians. The source given is the Bible, which, as I have already explained, is not reliable and begs the question. Of course, as I have also already explained, should Pro give a source for this letter other than in the Bible; I will entertain the possibility of conceding it. (biiib) 2~ Certain claimed appearances. My rebuttal of mass hysteria in particular follows this. I will address this further down. (biv) Mass hysteria. My opponent makes several points which I will address below: (biva) Sightings were reported to people who had seen him and not seen him before his death. This is expected. You do not need to have seen something before to report sightings of it. Actually, if this were not the case, then we would never see anything! (bivb) There were sighting by people who had never heard of him. This is actually quite interesting. If there is a source, I will be hard pressed to rebut this. (Not the Bible!) (bivc) It doesn't explain the empty tomb. It isn't intended to. (bivd) People had every reason not to believe it. Of course, but this won't affect the eyes and subconscious mind. If you see an optical illusion on a card, you have every reason to believe that it isn't moving (if it's one of those spirals): it is paper; it isn't a recording; it goes against logic (apparently); your religion dictates that this doesn't happen etc... But for all that, it still moves. (bv) Pressures of the Jewish culture at the time. This is, while interesting, easy to see while looking at the bigger picture. For every one person who claimed, there could have been 1, 2, 3, 5+ who didn't report it, even though they thought they saw it. I do not know how many people were killed for claiming the resurrection had been witnessed by them, but claims and experiences are different things. Maybe 100 claimed, but 1,000 experienced. What does this show? That yes, it is interesting that these people chose to die over live, but maybe 900 decided not to. The pressures were indeed, high, but that doesn't confirm claims.(5) Conclusions (a) The Kalaam argument. I have given refutes for this and introduced the begging of the question objection. These are not refuted and the resolution hasn't been met. (b) The Moral Argument. I demonstrated how my opponent's response was interesting, but just leads us to the dilemma instead of solving it. (c) The Argument from the Resurrection. I have given sufficient rebuttals and undermined the argument. (d) The resolution, therefore, has not been met.(6) Notes [a] As per last round, I will dismiss this unless a source is provided next round. (b) Pro, should you wish to make any thanks, regards, etc... to finish off, it must be next round. You can only put "No round posted here as agreed." in the fourth round. Big thanks to Pro, this debate is on fire! I'll see you next round! :)(7) Source(s) [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...'_razor [2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://atheism.about.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org... [7]http://www.bbc.co.uk...