"Does philosophy and science work together to offer compelling evidence for the existence of God?"

In my first rebuttal, I made three criticisms of the KCA.1. Actual infinites are possibe.Pro says my response commits the fallacy of composition. Pro says that "every finite interval can be counted but it doesn"t mean the infinite number of events can be counted. You have confused finite as the whole when it is in the infinite." I don't follow what Pro is saying here, which means it probaly doesn't resemble what I actually argued. I didn't make any argument from parts to wholes. i made the argument that actual infinities are possible because any finite interval can be infinitely divided.Pro went on to say that Hilbert's hotel leads to absurdities. Hilbert's hotel may lead to paradoxical results, but Cantor showed, using set theory, that actual infinities can exist. There are paradoxes, of course, but a paradox is not a contradiction.2. A finite past does not entail creation ex nihilo.Pro ignored this argument. Since this argument, by itself, refutes the second premise, then KCA is unsound.3. Coming into existence doesn't necessarily require a cause.Pro responded by arguing that "an uncaused event or being is not rational." But quantum theory has already shown that it happens all the time. Pro's argument failed to define "eternal," but it appears to mean the same thing as "a-temporal" or "timeless." But then if that's what it means, then the third premise is false. It's correct to say that if none is timeless, then all is temporal, but it doesn't follow that all has a beginning, much less that all came into being.The fifth premise is the issue under dispute, and Pro just asserts it. If it is possible for something to begin without a sufficient cause, as quantum physics shows, then the fifth premise is false. Or at the least, the fifth premise cannot be taken for granted.Pro then makes the following argument.*If something can come into existence uncaused, then a elephant can come into existence uncaused.*An elephant cannot come into existence uncaused.*Therefore, it is not true that something can come into existence uncaused.But the first premise is false. It doesn't follow from the mere possibility of something coming into existence uncaused that just any and everything can do so. Some events, like an elephant coming to be, require causes. Other events, like the decay of a radio active isotope, do not require sufficient causes.With the first and second premises of the KCA both refuted, and without Pro defending the KCA against these refutations, then KCA is refuted.Pro goes on to infer what properties the cause of the universe must have. Since I've already refuted the notion that the universe must have a cause, these property arguments are moot. But let's address them anyway.Even if we suppose the universe does require a cause, Pro has only shown that the cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. I challenged Pro to explain why the cause must be personal. Pro does so with a disjunctive syllogism.*The cause of the universe is either a mind or an abstract object.*The cause is not an abstract object.* Therefore, the cause is a mind.Pro makes no attempt to substantiate the first premise, but it can be attacked a number of ways. First, there's no evidence that an unembodied mind is even possible. Every mind that we're familiar with is an embodied mind. So an unembodied mind is highly unlikely.Second, Pro would need to rule out the possibility of there being a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, mindless object that is the cause of the universe. While it might be hard to imagine what such a thing might be, as long as we're talking about the supernatural, we can't rule out the possibility of strange things.Pro makes a second argument for why the cause must be a mind. It's because anything that isn't a mind would have to be a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, in which case the universe would be just as eternal as the cause. But this is false as I've already shown. It is possible for things to happen spontaneously. When an isotope decays, for example, there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for that to happen. It happens spontaneously. The same may be true for the cause of the universe.Pro makes the argument that a personal agent behaves differently than mechanical causes because "an agent can start new causal chains not determined by prior events." Well, if an agent cause cause a new causal chain without that chain being determined by prior events, then Pro has conceded that it's possible for there to be events without sufficient causes. Well, if it's possible for there to be events without sufficient causes, then the beginning of the universe could be just such an event.Pro's "personal agent" refutes the first premise of the KCA. If a personal agent can begin a causal chain without being caused to do so, then it's not true that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. But if everything that begins to exist must have a cause, then no causal chain can begin since every event or cause must have a causal event that preceded it.I used a rock as an analogy to show that if something does not exist in time or space, then it doesn't exist at all. Pro used laws of reason and math as counter-examples. But these are abstract things. We are talking about concrete things. If God existed, he would have to be a concrete thing, not an abstract thing. Any concrete thing must exist in space or time, as my rock analogy demonstrates.Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.