The Best Evidence/Argument For God's Existence

Response #1"P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being, an abstract object, or a non-personal force.P2) The cause of the universe is not an abstract object or a non-personal force.C) The cause of the universe is a conscious being"Firstly, I must point out the language in premise 1 is extremely vague and leads me to think that you might be creating a false trichotomy. You're discussing a being, an object, and a force, and its all just a bit too unclear for me to accept that premise 1 is necessarily true. Unless you were to re-word it so that you could be sure you are not violating the law of excluded middle, as I did when I re-worded the premise of your previous syllogism to say "the cause of the universe is either abstract or non-abstract.If you claim the cause of the universe is either A, B, or C, and you define A as "a conscious being" and B as "an abstract object", the only thing I would accept as C would be "something that is not a conscious being and not an abstract object". I'm not trying to get into a semantic debate here, the language simply needs to be clear when making these sort of claims.Secondly, at no point have you demonstrated premise 2, you have merely asserted it is true because one of the other explanations is inexplicable. While we may agree that something abstract cannot be the cause of the universe, you have not demonstrated that a "non-personal force", is not or cannot be the cause.Response #2"Con states that my argument is really an argument from ignorance. This is the logical fallacy where you state that "X is true because it has not been proven false" or "X is false because it has not been proven true". Con has failed to specifically identify what portion of my argument makes this fallacy." I thought a "specific identification" of the fallacy was clear as my contention directly followed a quote with the following two sentences:"Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world? This is completely inexplicable if a non-conscious force caused the universe, but a personal cause has no such issues, because we can say that the personal cause willed the universe into being."You essentially asked why would an impersonal force create the universe (paraphrasing), then said it was inexplicable. After claiming it was inexplicable, you then concluded that your alternative explanation is "therefore the best explanation". This is an argument from ignorance because you are affirming that B is supported based on the fact that A has no evidence. "A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim." (1) Your argument relies on the idea that the first "premise is false because it has not been proven true" (2), and therefore the second premise is true, which is a clear cut argument from ignorance. Pro seems to be trying to play a semantic game by subsequently watering down his premises/argument from necessary truth claims like "B is true" to claims like "B is the best explanation". This doesn't absolve him of committing the same underlying fallacy.I maintain that one of the main premises of Pro's argument is based on an argument from ignorance.Response #3"Rather, my argument is an argument about comparing two hypotheses on the origins of the universe. Hypothesis A is better than Hypothesis B if it explains some fact about the universe, F, better. Hypothesis A, which states that a personal cause brought the universe into being, explains the beginning of the universe through a will of a personal being. Hypothesis B, which states that a non-personal force caused the universe, fails to explain why, or even how, the universe began to exist. Therefore, a personal cause is more plausible than a non-personal force."Your hypothesis, namely that a personal cause willed the universe into being, fails to explain anything. You claim the hypothesis B fails to "explain why or how" the universe began to exist, but hypothesis A doesn't explain why or how this personal cause did it, it just claims that it did it. Saying a personal entity "willed" it into existence is equivalent to saying a non-personal entity "caused" it to exist. It explains nothing. EVEN IF it were to provide some explanation that actually had some substance to it, coming up with something that provides "some explanation" doesn't automatically make it the most acceptable position. An assertion isn't granted credence simply by virtue of providing some explanation. I explain this further and provide an example in my conclusion.Response #4"Con has not provided any proof that a mind has to have a brain, so I could stop right here. As he suggests, it begs the question to object to the argument based on the idea that mind depends on a brain."I do not claim that minds/consciousness cannot exist independent of a brain, but I object to the claim because I have no reason to believe it is true. You are the one that has asserted from the start that a mind exists independent of a brain/universe. This claim has a burden of proof, which you have not met. ConclusionPro's argument, which relies on a demonstrably fallacious premise and is based on the spurious assertion that this is simply a "better explanation" when it has yet to actually explain anything, has given me no reason to accept it. I will reiterate one of the main points I brought up in the opening round. I do not need to prove that God does not exist, I will be responding to why this evidence/argument is not sufficient to believe a God exists. In this context, I do not need to demonstrate that some alternative hypothesis is better than yours in order to reject it, I merely need to point out that yours does not provide sufficient justification in order to be held.The only real reason Pro has provided to believe that some consciousness willed the universe into existence is that the alternatives he proposes don't explain the universe's existence. This argument is logically the same as:P1. We heard a noise outside. (the universe had a cause)P2. The noise was either a vampire or not a vampire. (it was either caused by a mind or not a mind)P3. The idea that it wasn't a vampire provides no explanation for the noise. (if it wasn't a mind then it's inexplicable)C1. Therefore the best explanation is that it was a vampire. (therefore it was a mind)If you disagree with the structure/conclusion of the above argument, you will see that it is analogous to Pro's argument, and you should vote Con.I once again look forward to your response.Sources:(1) http://www.skepdic.com... (2) http://rationalwiki.org...