Resolved: The Cosmological Argument Fails to Prove God

Pro ->"Our Universe is composed of an infinite amount of time & energy". I'm afraid what evidence pro has supported for this is very limited. His entire arguments rests necessarily on Superstring theory which he has made literally no argument for that I can see. He starts off telling us what string theory says, then argues from there. In order to tell us what higher dimensions of space entail, he first has to demonstrate that the theory which predicts these higher dimensions is true. He hasn't done so. Pro hasn't argued how there are any more than 3 spatial and 1 time dimension. If Superstring theory is indeed correct, my opponent has a better case, but he has not proved it to be so. He only assumes it. As such, he hasn't gotten anywhere so far & still needs to provide some kind of proof for these dimensions. Pros argument seems a little confusing. He claims that a 3 dimensional reality is made up of an infinite amount of 2 dimensional planes all adjoining to one another, a 4 dimensional reality with infinite 3 dimensional planes so on. Perhaps I'm not entirely sure what he means by this, but he hasn't shown why these planes must or can stretch out for infinity. Besides the time dimension, dimensions are spatial, so you can't have dimensions without space. If space is infinite, these series of dimensions pro seems to be postulating may be infinite, but if space is finite, a series of dimensions must be finite. Pro would have to somehow prove space is infinite rather than the possibility of a space/time boundary. He hasn't done any of that and I'll latter provide arguments to the contrary. Furthermore, he says that time is infinite but his only argument for an infinite succession of dimensions is for spatial dimensions. This doesn’t address the single dimension of time. Indeed, since time is only one dimensional, it does not have the 3 or more dimensions that pro posits lead to an infinite amount of others. Pro says theoretical physics points to the multiverse conclusion but that is actually very far from the case & even people who would be considered ultimately defenders of Superstring theory would not agree with pros claims (Greene as shown in a bit). Superstring theory only explains certain constants of nature but does not point to where pro wants it to because it’s completely untested or falsifiable. Briane Greene admits Superstring theory is just a mathematical structure that can explain some parts of the world, however we've never even been able to actually test the theory even once! [1] Greene says perhaps in five years we can do so, but so far the theory is untestable beyond just how it works mathematically. Greene is a physicist who has done a lot of research into multiverese theory & string theory, defending the possibility of it, but claims "I don't believe a darn thing until it has observational or experimental support, proof of that sort."[2] Greene admits, Superstring theory has nothing of that sort, so while he advocates further research into it, & the good possibility of it, he does not even believe in it because so far he says there just isn't the evidence to warrant belief, & thus no one should believe in it. It is safe to say the multiverse & Superstring theories have little compelling evidence in their favor. Mathematical coherency does not equal evidence. Yes, in theoretical physics, it is a worthwhile theory to look in to, but it remains purely theoretical without any actual evidence for it. That's why people like Greene do not believe in it despite advancing the mathematical structures for it. Lee Smolin, a former defender of string theories, explains that Superstring theory has no testable predictions which are fundamental to a good theory. On top of that, attempts to explain reality by adding in extra dimensions has been going on since the early 1900's. The competitor to Einstein's space/time theory was in fact this idea of extra dimensions but it was shown to be wrong. Physicists find the view very attractive & it's continually used in attempts to explain things but also continually fails. There is no scientific refutation of Superstring theory (yet) but scientists like Smolin see it simply as an exhaustion of twisting & modifying the idea of multiple dimensions after continual failures with previous variations of the theory. In short, String theory is dead but physicists are too in love with it. [3] When I criticize Superstring theory as merely something that works mathematically, I am not in any way rejecting mathematical proofs. But the mathematical support for String theory is not in any way a proof. If you could mathematically prove it, that would be perfectly fine, but so far all you can show (after much twisting & modifying the theory) is that it works mathematically. I could predict pro making the fair accusation that I'm imposing a double standard by claiming Superstring theory does not meet the standards of a good scientific theory while still arguing God as a sound explanation. The difference between the two is that Superstring theory is scientific while God as an explanation is mostly philosophical. If you were to argue Superstring theory as a philosophical argument, there would be different standards in regard to testability & such, but that is not the case. While we do need evidence for God as being the cause, the kind of evidence needed for the two opposing theories is different as one is mostly philosophical while the other is scientific. Infinity Pro presumes energy & time are both infinite. This is highly problematic when mathematically we find it leads to absurdities. We can imagine what it would be like for there to be actual infinities & the conclusion we draw will be absurd. For example, under pros theory there would exist in reality an infinite amount of, let's say, rooms, copies of pro & copies of me. So let's say we take all the infinite copies of me & put them in the infinite amount of rooms. The rooms should be full. But then, what if we want to put the infinite copies of pro into these rooms too? Well let's see, there are an infinite amount of odd numbers & an infinite amount of even numbers. Therefore since there's an infinite amount of copies of me, we can put all copies of me that are in even numbered rooms & fit them into the infinite amount of odd numbered rooms. Now we have an infinite amount of empty even numbered rooms & the infinite amount of copies of pro can move in. This leads to absurdities because infinity plus itself would be equal to itself & infinity minus infinity would equal infinity. These type of situations are logically impossible in the real world. God As shown, an infinite regress cannot exist. It hasn't been contended that the universe had a cause, therefore we assume the universe was caused. Since it wasn't caused via the multiverse, we have to drop pro's theory & move on to another one. Since we can't have an infinite succession of causes, eventually we have to come to an uncaused cause. Since we cannot have an infinite past in time, this cause must transcend time. Since the universe is the beginning of all matter & energy, the cause must be immaterial as well. The only immaterial things are things like numbers & other abstractions or an immaterial mind. Since numbers & such, cannot cause things into existence, it must be a mind as an explanation. The mind either caused the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing) or ex deo (out of its own essence). Either case would require extreme power. Finally, since the cause has no external cause, it must exist necessarily. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a transcendent, necessary, timeless, sentient intelligence that is extraordinarily powerful. Thus, we can postulate a sentient creator of the universe that fits as a definition of God. [1] 16:15 http://goo.gl... [2] 3:12 http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl...