Resolved: god Probably exists

I think pro for his response. "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause." I'd like to remind the voters that it is pros burden to provide evidence for this premise. I think you will find he has failed to do so. Ex-nihilo/ex-materia Pro displays a somewhat surprising view that the universe did not come about from nothing. I have yet to see a KCA advocate assert that the universe came about ex-materia, but that seems to be what my opponent is stating. He actually very strongly denies that the universe came about ex-nihilo. Well I do find this illogical and not quite sound. In order for something to come about ex-materia that obviously means the matter in which it was made up of already existed. Now if we assert that the universe came about ex-materia that would mean the matter that made up the universe already existed. But wait a minute; that's the same as saying the universe existed prior to its existence, which doesn't really make sense. Now the fact is, the kalam cosmological argument necessarily posits the universe coming about ex-nihilo. I was taken aback that my opponent so strongly denies that the universe could begin ex-nihilo. William Lane Craig himself asserts that the universe came about ex-nihilo. So yeah, my opponent is err..misrepresenting his own argument. http://www.philoonline.org... I again want to point out the fact that my opponent has done very little to back up premise one. Showing that computers and tools are caused creations completely falls short in proving the assertion that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Quantum fluctuations Firstly my opponent's statement that "lack of eternal cause is not lack of internal cause", is irrelevant if he does not bring up evidence of an internal cause. My opponent attempts to make my reasoning look like a fallacy. He claims I am saying we have found no cause therefore there is no cause. No, I am not using that logic rather I am supporting quantum fluctuations by the general scientific consensus that quantum fluctuations are uncaused events. More so, evidence from the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, which are based off of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, support the view that the universe came about uncaused. "Furthermore, it belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity that is employed in the singularity theorems entails that it is impossible to extend the space-time manifold beyond the singularity. The definition in question is based on the concept of inextendible curves, a concept that has been most completely and precisely explicated by B. G. Schmidt (1971). In a space-time manifold there are timelike geodesics (paths of freely falling particles), spacelike geodesics (paths of tachyons), null geodesics (paths of photons), and timelike curves with bounded acceleration (paths along which it is possible for observers to move). If one of these curves terminates after a finite proper length (or finite affine parameter in the case of null geodesics), and it is impossible to extend the space-time manifold beyond that point (for example, because of infinite curvature), then that point, along with all adjacent terminating points, is a singularity. Accordingly, if there is some point p beyond which it is possible to extend the space-time manifold, beyond which geodesics or timelike curves can be extended, then p by definition is not a singularity." My opponents assertion that the scientists I cited don't understand the theory, is laughable. I cited real scientists whose job it is to know what they are talking about. All my opponent cites is a biased source on creationism and a debate on this website. Moreover my opponent simply has no grounds for this statement. He claims that the founder of the theory asserts that the cause of quantum fluctuations are just unknown. I have looked through my opponents sources and have found nothing mentioning this. But even if that were so, it is irrelevant. The founder of a scientific theory has less knowledge about it than scientists of when the theory has been around for longer. For example, science is always progressing thus more is being found out about scientific theories all the time. When quantum fluctuations were first discovered it would be plausible to believe scientists thought there must be some cause, it just wasn't known, but as time grew on it would be realized that there was actually no cause even if initial discoverers believed there was probably one. http://www.infidels.org... Atkatz, D., and Pagels, H. (1982), "Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunneling Event", Physical Review D 25: 2065-2073. Craig, W. L. (1979), The Kalam Cosmological Argument. New York: Harper and Row. Cause of God/infinite regression of causes My opponent brings up the contention that God transcends time. That God was the creator of time. This would be to assert that there was a time in which time did not exist. I will bring up the improbabilities to this and argue that time is a necessary construct of any physical real. That time must exist in existence. Time is a necessary quantity of expression. Constructs such as velocity and speed would be impossible without time. In fact, in order for my opponent to make the claim that God created time he would have to say that before the big-bang, time did not exist. But wait, you can't possibly use the term before if time did not exist then. In fact there are many words you could not use such as then and when and after. It can be established that in order for an event to occur there must be a moment in which it hasn't occurred. As Stephen Hawkins says, "Do we need a God to set it all up so a Big Bang can bang? … Our everyday experience makes us convinced that everything that happens must be caused by something that occurred earlier in time. So it’s natural for us to assume that something—perhaps God—must have caused the universe to come into existence. But when we’re talking about the universe as a whole, that isn’t necessarily so...You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in." Without time everything would occur simultaneously. That makes no sense however. To demonstrate, X is an event in which Y occurs and Z is an event in which Y ends. In a timeless world Y would occur at the very time in which Y ends. That makes no sense for the vast majority of things cannot occur at the same time they end. In any physical realm time must exist because it is a necessary physical construct. If God existed than he must exist within a physical realm, for he is a physical being, thus he cannot have created time. http://theosophical.wordpress.com... Now, an objection you might rise is that the general concept of God posits that he created everything thus it would obvious to say he created time. However, this falls short of answering the problem. No-one actually believes God created literally everything, besides himself, for there are many constructs necessary in any realm. Existence for example is neccessary. God did not create existence because existence is obviously necessary in order for him to exist. Action is another necessary construct. God did not create action because the very creation of action is an action thus God would be using his own creation before creating it which would make no sense. I would also like my opponent to explain how time could not exist for he has not done so. Hidden premiseIt appears my opponent is still not explaining the jump from cause to God. He still needs to show that the cause of the universe must be God.