The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

Pro rebuts by saying ""God is claimed not to be part of the universe" - I never said that." If god is part of the universe, then the cosmological argument fails by internal inconsistency. A "cause" is "The producer of an effect, result, or consequence." http://www.answers.com... If god is part of the universe, then according to the cosmological argument, god must have begun and must have a cause. Therefore the cause that created god along with the universe is not god. In other words, the definition of "cause" does not allow a thing to cause itself. Pro: "Pro assumes that there was a God that always existed prior to the universe, therefore he admits that it is possible for something to always exist." - I didn't say he always existed. If god did not always exist then he began to exist. Thus by the other cosmological argument premises there was something other than god, call it X, that created god. But if X could create god, then clearly X could have created the universe. therefore there is no necessity for god as an intermediary. Pro claims that causality is a rule of logic and not merely a law of nature. No one other than Pro believes this. I gave the example, of timing the exact moment of decay of a radioisotope. No cause for the exact moment has been found. there is no rule of logic that demands that such a cause exists. The universe would proceed exactly as it does if the proximate cause does not exist, with no contradictions arising. A logical proposition like 1 + 1 = 2 cannot have any other answer without a maize of inherent contradictions flowing as a consequence. One theory is that universe came into existence as a result of a "quantum fluctuation", an uncaused event inherent in the nature of nothingness. One rebuttal to that theory is that in infinite time, an infinite number of universes should have come into existence. However, the counter-argument to that the first one that appears "occupies the space" and suppresses further quantum fluctuations. There is a basis for this type of theory in the current theory of the way that dark energy expands the universe. >>>I challenge Pro to demonstrate a logical contradiction that results from the universe coming into existence completely without cause. For example, if that happened would it contradict 1 + 1 = 2? If not that, then what logical contradiction results? Pro says, "(2) An infinite chain of events with no beginning or end eh? I guess we lack the constructs to comprehend that as well." I have no trouble at all comprehending the possibility that something always existed, nor, to my knowledge, does any scientist. Until relatively recently (1960s) the most widely accepted theory of the universe was the Steady State Theory, which presumes that the universe always existed. Even scientists with different theories had no trouble understanding the concept. Many religions suppose that the universe always existed, so clearly many non-scientists have no trouble with the concept. However, if the concept poses a conceptual concept, that makes no difference with respect to the validity of the theory. The mathematical description supporting the theory does not require that it be capable of being conceptualized. that's true of many theories that have been proved true, like special and general relativity. "God doesn't have to be a deity, a being, but simply the cause of the universe." If so, then there has to be something that created God, and whatever that was could have created the universe as well. somewhere back in the chain of creation, there had to be a uncaused cause, a deity, or a thing that existed forever. An uncaused cause violates (1) and a permanent existence (2). Either way, the cosmological argument fails. >>>I challenge Pro to say whether he claims that God (1) always existed or (2) was created by something else, X. Which is it? Or is there some possibility, call it Y, other than having been created or always existing? I am asking about the God as defined by Pro in this debate. My comment about the definition given to God for the debate is just an observation, not an argument. I was just pointing out that the God as defined has no theological significance. For example, let's define God as the Big Bang. Then if the Big Bang theory is correct, then God by that definition is proved. True, but it doesn't imply anything at all about religion. Of course, the burden of proof for the debate falls upon Pro to prove the resolution. Pro is arguing no more than that he cannot imagine anything other than God creating the universe. However, I had given Pro a list of things that no one can imagine relative to our ordinary world, yet are nonetheless proved true. Pro has attempted to avoid this issue entirely, content to repeat that it cannot be other than he claims because, in essence, he cannot imagine it. the cosmological argument fails because we now know that nature is full of things we cannot imagine.