It is probable that God exists

I. KCA Objections: Causality Quantum mechanics & the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle directly refute universal causality. Taner Edis states, "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. Energy fluctuations out of nothing create short-lived particle-antiparticle pairs, which is why the vacuum is not emptiness but a sea of transient particles. An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the imagination. "[1] The appearance of "virtual particles" have been observed to come into being spontaneously & stochastically in empty space, meaning there is no external cause & it is impossible to predict when it will happen. Quantum fluctuations are the "temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation." [2] Leading physicist Michio Kaku says that there is uncertainty in whatever we do because there's "uncertainty with regards to the position of the electron".[3] This dispels the notion of causality. Causality only applies sometimes but it is clear not always. Fallacy of composition Even if we were to establish a causal nature of the universe, that in no way entails those laws apply to things outside of the universe. Pro will argue that our universe operates in a cause & effect nature, but that does not establish that the whole universe had a cause simply because things inside of the universe have causes. How are we to know that the laws of this universe are applicable to before or out of the universe? It's a fallacious jump in logic. A natural cause is pluasible Pro states that the first cause must transcend space & time & be an abstract powerful mind, thus rendering God as the most suitable definition. I'd have to dispute a few of pros assertions. Firstly I'd reference Immanuel Kant.[4] Kant argued that space & time were forms of intuition. "Space is not something objective & real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective & ideal, & originates from the mind's nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally." Time is dependent on its relation to things. We can certainly view space & time as not properties of substance. They are not material, rather immaterial abstract ideas. They are relational & belong to the intuition & are subjective constitutions of the mind. To transcend space & time is to transcend the subjective intuition of it. For reasons outlined, there is nothing very meaningful about things transcending time. Furthermore Stephen Hawking theorizes that the big-bang was an inevitable occurrence because of gravity. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can & will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper & set the universe going."[5] Theoretical physics proves that this universe is not all there is. There is a multiverse which consists of many other universes.[6] Pro's reason for saying God escapes the need for a cause is that he is timeless but what about the multiverse? Can parts of that not also escape time? According to Kaku, the multiverse is an 11-dimensional arena. You cannot go higher than 11. There are bubbles that float in this arena. The skin of the bubble represents a universe. "So we're like flies trapped on fly paper". Our universe is a three dimensional bubble but you can also get 4 & 5 dimensional bubbles. Bubbles expand & can sometimes bump into eachother which would explain the big-bang.[7] Thus we have a theory of the big-bang that does not require a divine cause. Problem of induction Hume is responsible for the problem of induction but I'm going to go off on my own track. How can you establish causality? A posteriori proof of it is quite evidently impossible. Causality is the nature of the reason behind one event following the other. To establish universal causality, would be to infer that every event that has occurred has a cause. That cannot possibly by a posteriori knowledge because we only observe some events. But a priori knowledge of causality is not possible either. There is nothing that allows us to a priori reason the necessity of causality as it's an empirical statement, but empirical proof of it is even more absurd as shown previously. II. Fine tuning I can't but help to notice a fallacy pro makes. That is his objections mostly only show that if the conditions were different, life as we know it would not exist. The key factor is that he is only refuting life as we know it, not life itself. Life could have evolved under different scenarios even if it would be much different to life as we know it now. The conditions of the world decide what type of life exists, so only life suited to those conditions can evolve. It very easily follows that life is suited for this universe solely because that was the only way we could evolve, & if the universe was different, life would have evolved in different ways. We can also differentiate between necessary laws & contingent laws. What does pro mean by "if the force of gravity was stronger?" Is pro saying the force of gravity could be different? Does he think the laws of mathematics could have been different as well? Certain laws are necessary in that they could not have been different. There is no single argument that states the universe could have had any different constants in the way pro is arguing. We may conceive of it being different but that does not equate to proving it could have been. The constants of the universe could very plausibly be necessary which would completely refute pros argument. I've already demonstrated the multiverse in the previous argument. Think of the vastness of our own universe. Now think of the fact that there is a whole multiverse. The size of the multiverse entails vast potential so that very fitted conditions for life would be not only probable but quite inevitable. We could say the positioning of all the planets & such had a small chance to be fitted just right but when you consider the multiverse, it's inevitable that conditions would exist somewhere that would be just right for life to exist. III. Metaphysics The one problem I find with the argument is it takes the statement "Why is there nothing rather than something" & just slaps on God as the answer without too much evidence except for gaps in our knowledge. We're coming closer & closer to finding the reasons behind the existence of our universe. That in itself is an incredible feat. But once we start talking about the reason for existence itself, it is pure speculation. Pro cannot go further than that. There are plausible theories however that require no divine explanation. Pro already stated out of nothing nothing comes, or "& ex nihilo nihil fit". Taking this premise & the fact that there is something, it would seem that something is a logical necessity. In other words, existence is necessary. Everything is necessary. It was a logical metaphysical necessity that the universe & matter exists. The idea of there being no existents is a logical impossibility. Nothing, as a condition, is impossible. If we say that there being something is contingent, than pro has contradicted himself since it would conflict with the "& ex nihilo nihil fit" premise. Credit to rationalthinker for the basis of this argument. Sources http://goo.gl...