Resolved: god Probably exists

P1) Everything has a causeMy BOP is upheld because everything we see in the universe is evidence of it.Ex-nihilo/ex-materiaMy opponent has still failed to show that ex-nihilo is required to fufill the premise. He merely asserts it is required as WLC, a defender of the KCA, beleives it to be required. Ad Authoritum Fallacy. There is no hidden language saying the universe was caused. [...] ex-nihilo. This point is nothing more then a red herring and a different interperetation of the KCA. â€œAnd therefore all things have the same causes, because, without substances, modifications and movements do not existâ€ï¿½ -- Aristotle, and [1].Quantum fluctuationsWith this objection my opponent still attempts to pose the argunment of somehting coming without a reason, and his example quantum fluctuations. But this is again illogical. After all, how can nothing create something? Nothing is a non-intellegent force and nothing has that much power; nothing. Nothing has no power whatsoever. It has no resources as well. It cannot create anything, nothing cannot create something. Hence I would like to point out based on this the point stands.Now as stated there are still many obvious objections to the theory, one being a vaccum (the theory is a quantum flucuation in a vaccum caused our universe) is not actually nothing. This is important as it still proves the poitn we have not yet observed a cause, there still being a possibility of one occuring. A vaccum is: â€œ[A] sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence.â€ï¿½[2]As stated last round, the cause may be something on the microscopic level. An atom, a particle, the exact things you see in a vacum. As science is provisional, an unobserved cause is being argued as no cause (my opponents case here). As it is extremely hard to observe atoms, the dissolving particles may trigger a chain reaction; therefore quantum fluctuations may be caused contrary to my opponents position.Now the theory my opponent is supporting is in a vaccum spitting universes (all expanging) an "uncaused" quantum fluctuation formed creating another universe. But based on this theory, the multiple universes being created and all expanding means they will likely collide at one point. A collision may be able to be a creator of the beginning fluctuation. Hence another cause we may not be able to observe.As we can see there are many internal or external causes for quantum fluctuations, many of which we cannot observe. As science is provisional, and the cause is unobserved, it is deemed uncaused. This is highly faulty and leads us to a lot of doubt about my opponents case. I would also like to note my opponent relies on another fallacy this round. Ad Authoritum, again. He is arguing scientists say it is uncaused, therefore it is uncaused. This breaks this fallacy and therefore seems the majority of his argunment here irrelevant or fallicious. The fact is they have merely not found a cause, not that it is causeless. It being uncaused is a mere assertion by scientists. I will bring forth the quote from last round, "the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known". In other words the theory (the quote was directed towards this specific theory) is an unknown cause, an unobserved one, not a "no" cause. see[3]As we can see even if we assume these scientists are correct on the assumption[s] of a vaccum, we must also use the uncertianty principle wich refutes quantum theory, meaning this objection is not one that refutes the premise. Also my scientist thing was irrelevant, lol.Cause of godAs stated this objection actually fails, based on the simple wording of the premise. God has existed eternally. The KCA argues anything that begins to exist has a cause, god never began to exist he always did, therefore this objection still fails. The objection here is groundless, and misinterprets the position.If there have been an infinite amount of opportunities for X to happen, why did X happen when it did? Why did X happen at all? The ever-stretching boundary of time going far far backwards and left shows that there has been as much an infinite amount of time for X to happen as there has been a lack of a coherent beginning. Natural causes are all governed by laws and are mindless. Natural causes will always happen in specific ways. For example, while we may not know which electron will leave a radioactive molecule. We do know that an electron will leave that radioactive molecule at specific moments, which is why we are able to employ radiometric dating. But with an infinite regress of past events or opportunities, it is inexplicable why mindless natural causes would choose one opportunity over another. HOWEVER, while a conscious cause may have an infinite amount of opportunities to cause the Universe, he is not required to cause the Universe at any of those specific opportunities. And, since he is conscious and has free will, he can choose whichever opportunity he wants! Thus the idea of the beginning of the Universe makes coherent sense in light of theism, and not atheism.My opponent makes a argument that God could not have created the Universe because he would have to be within time to cause anything. This is an assertion. If this were true, of course, then it would also apply to the Hawking-Penrose model. After all, if the Universe requires time to be caused, then the Universe can not cause itself to come into being because no time existed. Pro's argument leads us to the conclusion that NOTHING could have come into being before time, therefore nothing came into being. But wait, we exist..."Now, an objection you might rise is that the general concept of God posits that he created everything thus it would obvious to say he created time. However, this falls short of answering the problem. No-one actually believes God created literally everything, besides himself, for there are many constructs necessary in any realm. Existence for example is necessary. God did not create existence because existence is obviously necessary in order for him to exist. Action is another necessary construct. God did not create action because the very creation of action is an action thus God would be using his own creation before creating it which would make no sense."Just an assertion, a red herring. Hidden Premise There is no other cause other then god probable, mere chance is unlikely. And as the resolution states "probably", and mere chance is in my favor, the hidden premise is refuted based on the nature of the resolution.CONCLUSION I dont know how well I did, I generally do not do debates like this. So I urge a pro vote, and I cross my fingers. P1) trueP2) trueC/3: true vote pro! [1] http://www.answeringinfidels.com...[2] http://www.skepticalchristian.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...