God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

"Terms like "explanation", "beginning", "cause" are thrown into a discussion on the something as big as the Universe or as small as a singularity as if they have meaning .. so how Pro thinks the English language can cope is beyond me." Well I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. are you trying to change the definitions of the terms "explanation", "beginning" or "cause". The meaning of those words is self-evident and I do not think Con's argument here has any substance. " The leading physicist behind BGV (Alan Guth (the G in BGV)), has stated he has no idea whether the Universe "began" or is "eternal". " This demonstrates that my opponent has no idea on the history of the BGV theorem. The leading physicist is actually alex Vilenkin and not Guth. He has been the one responsible for most if not all media mentions and has been the one showing on TV shows to explain the theorem. WLC contacted Vilenkin who affirmed Craig that theorem concludes that if the universe is expanding then it has a cause even if it is part of the multiverse, the theorem's results extends to quantum interpretation and that it is too unstable for any universe to exist if it was preceded by a period of contraction before expansion [1] " Theists seemingly a little too desperate to justify their beliefs using science, when they clearly do not understand it." Just a reminder that Science was established by two Franciscan Friars, Roger and Francis Bacon. " By invoking an infinite being! So the strategy is to invoke an infinity, to terminate an infinity ... But by magically creating an interlocutor (an infinite god) he can terminate that series." Con is confusing quantitative infinity with qualitative infinity. When theists say God is infinitely loving or infinitely merciful, we mean that his qualities of love and mercy as so great to a degree beyond human comprehension. However, quantitative infinities like an past-infinite sequence of temporal events is where the objection is, since it contradicts famous philosophical principles like infinite regress. Consider this, If the universe is past-eternal, how did it get to the big bang? If the universe is past-eternal, It would be travelling through an infinite sequence of events through the equally real time (assuming B theory of time). However, if the universe is travelling forever through this past-infinity of events, it will be stuck in infinity (infinite regress) and it would never get to the big bang fourteen billion years ago. But it did get to the big bang so the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. That is the infinite regress that theists object to. R1) Contingency " It is not anti-science to suggest that everything in existence needs an explanation" There goes the law of cause and effect. "when science itself teaches that the underlying nature of existence is indeed random." absolutely unevidenced bare assertion that contradicts all the data we have. The entire purpose of science is to discover the laws of nature and the laws of physics that give order rather than randomness to nature. How can Con claim that nature is random if one of science's major purposes is to discover and study the laws of physics that give nature order? "The simple intuition that contingent things could have been different, therefore they must have an explanation, is false." Bare unevidenced assertion contradicting 5,000 years of philosophical thinking and principles like the Principle of sufficient reasoning. " It is clear that even if everything that exists at any moment has an explanation to it, it does not follow that everything taken together has an explanation to it." Con just completly misunderstood the meaning of premise 2. Premise 2 states that based on inductive reasoning, philosophical principles and laws of logic EVERYTHING must have an explanation. The second premise is not founded upon reasoning by composition rather based on inductive reasoning and the laws of logic and science that the universe itself follows and is therefore subject to. Similar to how scientists use inductive reasoning of increased entropy in closed systems to apply that and make judgement about the universe like the heat death of the universe [2]. Inductive reasoning allows transition from parts to the whole as evidenced by the heat death. Scientists used inductive reasoning to discover the laws governing the closed systems that exists within the universe to make judgement about the whole closed system of the universe. The main problem here is Con's failure to distinguish between inductive reasoning and reasoning by composition. "how do we know it cannot only create other necessary things? For example to the extent humanity was already in a gods plan, surely we were already necessary (to that god), and therefore never contingent at all (this is further developed below)." God is free and could have created angels in the place of humans or unicorns or aliens, etc. He is free to do whatever he wants, thats the whole point of the divine freedom doctrine. "His conclusion is already assumed." Not if you have failed to refute the evidence provided and made bare assertions instead of rebuttals. "Pro wishes to conclude that a god must be the explanation .. be impressed at this point? It is merely a definitional move and a non-sequitur. The same of course applies to the KCA." I provided a logical analysis to the nature of the explanation of the universe. Con waives away all the evidence and analyses I provided for this argument and instead provides bare assertions or red herring fallacies that are not relevant to our discourse. Con has not disproven the premises since he fails at distinguishing reasoning by composition and inductive reasoning. He also seems to miss the fact that a major part of science is the study of physical laws. "If a god was responsible for the Universe, the chances of there being this Universe are 100% (a god could not choose otherwise if he desired to bring about humanity, and of course could not fail to succeed)." again, divine freedom. R2) Kalam " He meant that you cannot use this kind of reasoning and language when discussing the origins of the Universe. Even physics breaks down at the big-bang singularity" We can use philosophy, laws of logic and laws of thought which are all necessary [3]. They are also true since logic seems to work out well and has never been disproven since almost everything is disproven on the basis of logic so it is impossible to disprove logic using logic. Therefore, philosophy provides a valid way of talking about the universe using necessarily true principles like "ex nihilo, nihil fit". " Is it taken to mean 1) human or divine action only? or, 2) Human or divine action + scientific causation?" It is taken to mean efficient causality, whatever you want to include in that as long as it fits the term. " The argument should read" Strawman fallacy. You are proposing an argument I did not propose nor even came close to proposing. Worse to come, You start attacking your own strawman. "Triangle ... Does that also make it a candidate for Universal origins?" WLC actually makes this point in his video about the kalam [4], that the argument does indeed narrow down to two possibilities which are God and abstract objects (like numbers, geometrical shapes, triangles, squares, etc.). However, we can safely eliminate abstract objects because we know that they abstract and do not have a concrete existence and therefore have no causal powers. Do not believe me? Grab a paper, draw a triangle and tell me if the triangle on the paper creates anything? Furthermore, we all know based on inductive reasoning that numbers or triangles can not create anything with concrete existence like cars, houses, etc. and therefore could easily be ruled out based on inductive reasoning. Con might say well if you draw God on paper, it would still not create anything either. The obvious objection is that triangles are abstract and have no concrete existence (therefore the only way to make it exist in reality is to draw it out on paper) while the God hypothesis does have a concrete existence and can exist in reality without being drawn on paper. Watch Dr. Craig's video who demonstrates this point more eloquently. "There is almost no support for the idea that things can come into existence without a cause." Inductive reasoning, 5,000 years of philosophy, laws of logic and principles of philosophy like "ex nihilo, nihil fit" and therefore whatever comes into existence can not do so out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing (since out of nothing, nothing comes). "the existence of virtual particles that do "pop into existence", uncaused." Fallacy of ignorance. Virtual particles are the result of quantum vacuum energy (material) and energy fluctuations (efficient). Energy is not nothing con. " Again we have the fallacy of composition (even though my opponent tries to pre-empt it), you cannot construct from parts of the Universe, to the whole." Inductive reasoning rather than reasoning by composition. "What does it mean to say the Universe has a beginning?" Came from nothing. "1.Eternal means "has existed for all of time" 2.Time only "began" co-terminously with the Universe 3.The Universe is eternal and Premise 2 is false" Premise one is a bare assertion. Eternal means existed forever without beginning or end and thus logically it follows that it means without time since for time to take effect and have a sequence of events, it needs t = 0, but there is no beginning. Premise 2 is true. However, it shall be noted that this applies only to the natural world based on inductive reasoning. Premise 3 is, thus, assumed. "Here we are told that the origins of the Universe have a cause. But how can that be? Causation is a temporal phenomenon" Therefore the cause has to be timeless and can not be nothing since nothing has no causal powers since it is NO THING