God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe

Now, one of the most common arguments made by theists is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam Cosmological argument goes like this (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...): (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists. Now, there are some problems with this argument and I will break it down. "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." Is this actually true? Quantum physics will say that it is not true. Radioactive decay is an uncaused event. "Quantum theory gives us many examples of events without causes." "Take two uranium atoms and wait. After a while one will emit an alpha particle (two protons and two neutrons) the other will not" As you can see, the alpha particle begins to exist ex materia, which is the decay of the uranium, but there is no cause for it. http://www.mso.anu.edu.au... So, the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument actually fails, causing the whole argument to collapse. Stephen Hawking has even made an argument about the universe that, if put in the form of deductive reasoning, would look like this: (1) Causes must precede their effects in time (2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe) (3) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause This shows that the universe must be uncaused. He extends it further by saying: (4) Theism requires that God be the cause of the universe (5) The universe cannot have a cause (6) Therefore, theism is false http://www.hawking.org.uk... When we look at this it becomes clear that the universe cannot have a cause, but how then did it start? Can science explain the uncaused origin of the universe? The answer is that a conclusion can be met, but it cannot be confirmed. I will let Professor Lawrence Krauss explain in this video. As you can see, the universe could arise from a naturalistic explanation with two main components, maybe three: virtual particles popping in and out of space, quantum theory effecting gravity, and possibly a multiverse. Empty space"s virtual particles popping in and out of existence is called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations (usually referred to simply as Quantum Fluctuations). "Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing" (this type of nothing being empty space). ***On a side note*** This also helps show the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be invalid as virtual particles are popping up ex nihilo, if we can consider empty space to be nothing, without cause. If we cannot consider the beginning ex nihilo and if the first premise only deals with ex nihilo we see another problem. The only thing to appear ex nihilo would be the universe, causing the argument to fall apart by turning it into: (1) The universe has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. Which makes it logically flawed. ***Back to this part of the argument*** http://universe-review.ca... Spacetime popping into existence is called Primary State Diffusion. This states that spacetime is fluctuating on a quantum level. "Space-time PSD is based on a stochastic di@256;erential structure and a @258;uctuating space-time metric. These are quantum @258;uctuations, but they are expressed in terms of non-di@256;erentiable relations between classical space-times. All other quantum @258;uctuations are consequences of these space-time @258;uctuations" http://arxiv.org... The multiverse is a theory that allows for more than one universe, a potential infinite amount of them. Some will say that it is just speculation, however there does exist a piece of evidence to support the existence of another universe. These other universe"s gravity pulled on our universe during the Big Bang, causing the cosmic background radiation to be more focused instead of spread out and even a cold spot to appear in the cosmic background radiation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Now, when we look at this we see that it all starts just by having a fluctuation in spacetime, an uncaused fluctuation. This means that this naturalistic model of the universe actually fits with the deductive argument that the universe cannot have a cause. The universe comes into existence at the spacetime fluctuation. When we take into consideration one of the variations of Murphy"s Law, If it can happen, it will happen, we see that the universe arising, uncaused, from naturalistic explanations is bound to happen. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law We also can take into consideration that there was a super complex computer simulation of the universe using the currently discovered laws and theories of the universe, and the result? The simulated universe was almost exactly like our own. There were a few differences, showing that we have more laws and theories of the universe to discover, but looking at how close we are shows that the naturalistic view is very well supported. http://www.haaretz.com... This concludes my opening round. It is now Pro"s turn to argue his view.