It is probable that God exists

KCA Causality Pros first objections don't do anything to refute this point. In the observable world there are ALWAYS going to be laws restricting & allowing certain events. It is entirely true that the random events I mentioned had necessary preconditions. I just don't see how it's relevant. Is it remotely conceivable to say something within the universe could have transcended all its laws? No, but that's not the point. It is entirely plausible to say there were preconditions to the uncaused beginning of the universe. One would be that it had the potential to become the universe! Pro himself could not even argue for an uncaused God without certain preconditions such as the existence of logic for example, so by pros reasoning we should also discount his view that God was uncaused. Pro furthermore states, "The cause therefore would be whatever caused these particles to begin in the first place." But that makes absolutely no sense. What caused particles to exist is not responsible for causing them to move & perform actions. There were causes prior to the uncaused event. It doesn't make the event caused. Unfortunately for pro, scientists don't believe the beginning of the universe began from literally nothing. So when pro notes that quantum fluctuations occur in a sea of fluctuating energy, it does nothing to refute my point. That sea of fluctuating energy is empty space. Well almost empty space. It is very much in a sense nothing. Not literally nothing but nothing in the sense that scientists talk about. Quantum fluctuations can very plausibly have caused the beginning of the universe & some physicists agree. You might ask how such a small thing could cause such a big event. That is because in the beginning, because of the negative energy of gravity, the total energy would be zero. The negative & positive energies added together would cancel out, leading to the big-bang & expansion of the universe. [1] Pro commits a clear false dichotomy when he asks if things can come to being uncaused why does not everything come in to being as so. The possibilities are not everything has a cause or nothing has a cause. We don't understand why some things are caused & uncaused but empirical evidence directly shows some things are caused as well as defeating the premise that everything is caused. FOC There is a very noticeable lack of evidence by pro to prove that causality is a necessary law that exists in all possible worlds. I can clearly conceive of a world without it. It can't be equated with mathematics. It's a complete strawman to say I need to show that logic is irrelevant outside the universe. Causality is a metaphysical principle. Contrary to math, it's all dependent on the nature of things. Logic itself does not necessitate causality, & non-caused events can occur well within the bounds of logic. Causality is not even properly understood. As Hume notes, just because we always see A follow B, we never really detect an actual link.[2] I’m not promoting the idea that causality does not exist, just that we don’t have a full understanding of it. So pro cannot in any way prove it is a necessary law of the universe like mathematics. Natural cause I'm at a complete loss as to why pro claims I failed to explain what the cause was. Seeing as he even responded to my arguments that demonstrated the exact thing, I am left quite clueless. Pro again strawmans me. I never stated space & time do not exist, merely that they only exist in correlation to agency in a subjective sense. They are necessary to understand reality, but all they end up being are intuitive properties. It’s factual that out intuition of time is relative. When we go to sleep, time seems to speed up & it also seems to go slow/faster doing certain things. Time is merely the idea that we use to understand the nature of reality. Pro has provided no explanation as to what time is while I have. Notice also, my point was not to refute the contradictory nature of infinity as pro seems to believe but merely to undermine pros contention that only a being like God could transcend time. As stated before, pro misunderstands nothingness. The nothingness before the universe, was like how we conceive of empty space as nothing. To expand on the point more, general relativity can be combined with quantum theory to explain the origin of the universe. The two theories combined “predicted that small fluctuations would develop & lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, & all the other structure in the universe. This is confirmed by observations of small non uniformities in the cosmic microwave background, with exactly the predicted properties.”[3] Pro also gives no response to my argument via Kaku that the multiverse could exist outside of time. Thus he concedes that the multiverse, if it exists, did not have a beginning. More evidence for the multiverse is under the fine tuning argument. POI Unfortunately dropped for lack of space. Fine tuning Pro keeps shifting the burden of proof one me. In the last round I pointed out pro made a lot of unfounded assumtions. He has still failed to substantiate those assumptions. Pro fails to show how we could not have evolved under different circumstances. We can empirically observe that what's necessary for human life is not necessary for other life. How then is he to say we needed these exact conditions to live? Last round I asked pro to show how the laws of the universe could have been different but instead of answering he says I haven't showed the laws couldn't have been different. I'm afraid it's pro who is making the assumptions not me. It's him who needs to provide proof. Either one universe exists or multiple universes exist. The only theory that's been lent any support is for the multiverse. Pro has no argument for for a single universe. There are however wholly plausible ones for the competing theory. For example, dark matter can only be explained by the multiverse as Brian Greene explains, “The spectacular failure of attempts to explain the amount of dark energy has raised questions about this confidence, driving some physicists to pursue a radically different explanatory approach, one that suggests (once again) the possible existence of a multiverse.” [4] To put my argument in perspective, imagine a googolplex universe. In a googolplex universe, the potential for the certain arrangements of matter & molecules would be so incredibly large that in all probability, if you were to travel through it, you would most likely come across an exact replica of yourself![5] It is completely conceivable to believe that via chance, a fitted condition for life would arise. Metaphysics I don't see why I would need to show what created existents. That's not my position. Things that are necessary don't need to be created. Pro unfortunately commits an extremely common mistake amongst theists. God can explain just about absolutely anything. Theists then can insert him into wherever there are gaps in our knowledge & say they have the only explanation. That is exactly what pro is doing. He's saying he has an explanation while I do not. Well I'm afraid the more unknown the question of discussion, the more fallacious it is to assume God. The question of why there are existents is easily one of the biggest questions ever posed & far from our knowledge. God may answer it, but that doesn't mean it's a credible argument whatsoever. Pro largely drops my argument for the necessity of existence. Perhaps it would be good if the argument could be expanded on, but it can't really. We can deduct that existence is necessary. We may not know exactly why but it is clearly the case. That is because if existence was contingent, there would be nothing. Pro hasn’t refuted that. There is something however thus leading us to believe that existence is necessary. Pro has not backed up his arguments, thus you must vote con. http://goo.gl...