The existence of God

“Again stating opinion that there is a lack of evidence."Since the original reason for this section was questioning why I hold my atheistic opinion then surely this is completely valid."You will examine it through your presuppositions, as you stated the only thing that will make you convert is something unlikely to happen, then you said you would think it was a hallucination. You wont be able to objectively examine it."Actually, I would treat it skeptically, as any reasoning individual would. Of course a hallucination is more likely than a supernatural explanation so I would treat it as such. CosmologicalPro states that quantum fluctuations are small and not the size which could create a universe. My response to this is that they are indeed usually small, but not always by any means. Physicist Edward Tryon said "The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations." (1) This supports the words of Heinz Pagel that physics does indeed allow for my alternative, contrary to what you said. Pro also states that virtual particles cancel each other out, once again you are committing the mistake of asserting that something which happens often therefore happens always. Although they tend to cancel each other out, they don't always, and can be converted into real particles with the addition of energy. (2)Pro then goes on to state that the energy which would be present in the eternal vacuum would've been used up. He seems to be unaware of the first law of thermodynamics concerning the conservation of energy "energy can be neither created nor destroyed," for example, chemical energy can become kinetic energy but it will still be present as energy. (3) Therefore my eternal vacuum hypothesis has gone unrefuted. Pro goes on to give a subjective and flawed list of what the uncaused cause of the cosmological argument must be. I'll address each one:• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).Supernatural is actually not a necessary attribute, I've given a perfectly natural explanation which fits and is supported by scientists. If you subscribe to the belief that before the universe there was no time and space then you could clearly see a universe-creating quantum fluctuation as the creation of both time and space. • He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)This is dependent on what your definition of power is. Such an incredible quantum fluctuation as the one I have described would indeed be powerful in the sense that it would be sufficent to cause a universe.• He must be eternal (self-existent).I have already acknowledged the attribute of eternality in my quantum vacuum.• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).Well since the quantum vacuum I've described would have existed eternally and before space then it would not be limited by it.• He must be timeless (He created time).If you subscribe to the idea that time began when the big bang began then my explanation fits.• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.This is completely superfluous to needs, why must it be immaterial? An uncaused cause needs only to be eternal.• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.No conflict here.• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.Pro is clearly making the case for a God here, not an uncaused cause... You could change the attributes “unity” and “diversity” to absolutely anything when making this argument...• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.Once again a case for a God is being made and not an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause would've been the starting point for the universe, not life. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. Why? This attribute of purposefulness rests on the assertion that the universe was deliberately created. This assertion is completely unsubstantiated and superfluous, my explanation works without it. Once again, a case for God is made, not an uncaused cause.As I have demonstrated, Pro's criteria is arbitrary and largely unnecessary. He makes a case for a God, when an uncaused cause is all that is necessary. I have given an alternative explanation, which is just as plausible/ticks as many boxes as the God hypothesis. The God hypothesis got its strength from being 'the only possible uncaused cause,' but since I have demonstrated it is not... The God hypothesis is rendered redundant and has been fully rebutted. God of the Gaps Pro continues saying that science is looking for material proof for an immaterial being. Once again I will repeat, there is no evidence for a transcendent, immaterial dimension and saying that science is using the “wrong evidence” to look for God is absurd. Pro is suggesting that science should use a type of evidence which has no evidence for existing to find a being which has no evidence for existing. Pro then goes on to address my earlier question of how exactly science should look for this 'transcendent God.' His first point is that we cannot ever find or reveal a transcendent God because we're material and he's not, therefore his revelation is at his discretion. This, of course, is extremely convenient for the religious believer because the complete lack of any evidence can be remedied by saying “Well, God will only be revealed if he wants to be.” First off, how does this prove God again? It is an extremely weak line of defence and is indicative of the complete absence of any real proof of God, it's just another way to hold off the logical conclusion that there is no God. Pro then makes two elaborations on what this revelation would be like, should it happen. Both are utterly irrelevant as he has given no evidence of such a revelation ever happening and he's simply adding details. Pro states that I see a lack of evidence as supporting atheism. I accept this, I certainly do, if there is a lack of evidence for it then there is no reason to believe in it. He states that you cannot compare God to other myths because God is unique, but I am not comparing God, I'm comparing him as an example of 'being' for which evidence is lacking, like FSM, so the comparison is valid. He makes the same mistake in the next paragraph. I know watches are made because this is trivial everyday knowledge. Applying it to a natural thing like the universe is severely misleading. You accuse me of the fallacy of division, yet applying your creator-logic to a universe via your watch analogy is the fallacy of division. (One complicated thing is designed, therefore all must be.) This makes no sense... If you want your argument to be addressed then make it coherent. TAG Pro presents an extremely disappointing and lacklustre post here, it seems to be the final breath of a dying argument, I'll put it out of its misery. This is not a response, I responded to what you said above, simply pointing me back to it is not adequate. Pro states that I did not account for the laws of logic... Yet I did, I stated that they are necessary facts of existence (in order for a thing to exist, it must be itself.) He then makes the painfully false assertion that I claimed “they exist because we describe them.” Actually, I stated that a mind is required for us to say “the laws of logic are X and Y", but the existence of something is required for the laws of logic to exist themselves, since they are a property of existence... and therefore not transcendent/independent of the universe. A mind can conceive of them, but that conceiving would only be a description of them, not the actual laws. I don't need to prove that the laws are independent of a supreme mind, you need to prove they are. You have failed to do so. I have rebutted all of Pro's arguments completely. TAG was basically a concession.VOTE CON I'll leave you with a quote.. Einstein on the universe:"The miracle is that there are no miracles"Sources in comments.