There is a God.

AveLeibnizian Cosmological ArgumentThe LCA argues for the existence of a necessary being who caused the universe. In my last round, I presented an argument, backed up by quotes from philosophers P.F. Strawson and Quentin Smith, that this idea was incoherent. Since a concept cannot analytically entail its own instantiation a priori, but only through a posteriori reasoning, the concept of a necessary being is incoherent; It requires that a concept is analytically relates to its own instantiation. This argument was not addressed by Pro in the last round. All Pro did was reference the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I consider my refutation to the LCA to stand untouched at this point.Kalam Cosmological ArgumentPro brought this new argument up in the last round, so I'll spend time refuting it.The first problem is that the argument is inconsistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity. Physicists derive equations from Einstein's theory called metric tensors, which describe the geometric and causal structure of space-time. [1] Ever since Einstein created general relativity in 1915, four physicists have derived metrics from his theory that describe the universe we live in, which are now called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metrics. [2] The FLRW metric describes a universe that is isotropic, homogenous, and expanding. These metrics also state that every state of time is half-open.[3][4] In other words, any given instantaneous moment is preceded by another instantaneous moment. If this is the case, then there is no moment at which god brings the universe into being. Any instant of the universe is caused by another instant, so there is no instant that is caused by god. Einstein's general theory of relativity therefore tells us that there is no moment at which god brought the universe into being, contradicting the Kalam Cosmological Argument.If the theist wants to turn to quantum mechanics instead of general relativity to save the argument, they find themselves with even bigger problems. Bohm's equation for the wave-function of the universe tells you the trajectory a particle given initial data for all times of the universe.[5] According to Bohm's equation, the probability of the universe existing at its initial conditions is 95%.[6] The problems that the WFU of the universe presents for an omnipotent cause of the universe are also elucidated by Smith: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’’[7]So, it's been established that the KCA is inconsistent with general relativity and quantum mechanics, and there is presently no physical theory which is consistent with its conclusons.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] I consulted DDO user nordmarj, who has a master's degree in Astronomy and Physics, and he told me this was a correct statement.[5] Stephen Teufel, professor of mathematical physics at the University of Technology, Munich, in his lecture called "Quantum theories without observers".[6] http://www.infidels.org...[7] IbidSimultaneous causationI'd like to start off with a brief explanation of quantum non-locality. In an experiment, when the spin state of one particle is measured, this instantaneously causes a spatially distant particle to take on an anticorrelated (opposite) spin. The amazing thing about quantum non-locality is that spatial distance is irrelevant. Particles can have these kind of relationships with each other even if they're on opposite sides of the universe. Our intuition tells us that you have to be near something to do anything to it (I have to be next to a shark for it to bite me). However, in the world of quantum mechanics, it's as if a shark bit me, a person in California, all the way from the Indian Ocean! You'll also notice the word "instantaneously causes". This means that quantum locality is simultaneous causation. Therefore, any experiment establishing quantum non-locality is proof of simultaneous causation. This is why I'm shocked to see that Pro ignored all experimental proofs of simultaneous causation. What about Alain Aspect's two experiments, or the experiments done by Freedman and Clauser? Pro doesn't have anything to say about this argument, so I consider this line of proof to stand untouched at this point in the debate.Pro implies that simultaneous causation violates the theory of relativity. This simply isn't the case. As Technology Review notes in their article, "The influence between the particles may be immediate, but the process does not violate relativity because some informatiom has to be sent classically at the speed of light." [1]Pro offers two arguments against the possibility of simultaneous causation. The first argument is a fallacy because it assumes the very thing it's trying to prove. By having the premise "Transfers of energy always take a non-zero amount of time", it already assumes simultaneous causation to be impossible, which is what the conclusion asserts. This means that it's a case of circular reasoning.The second argument stands completely unsupported. There are no justifications provided to take any of the premises as true or reasonable to accept. I could simply stop right here, but I'll offer some attacks on this unsupported argument.Pro says that if simultaneous causation can happen, then something can cause itself. I don't see how this is factually true. Simultaneous causaton has nothing to do with something causing itself (A--->A). Rather, it relates to causation among individual things (A--->B--->C--->A) [2]. Because of this, there are reasons to think that the first premise is false.There is a great irony in Pro claiming that there is no evidence for simultaneous causation, while also arguing for the Kalam. Academic theists say that god created the universe through simultaneous causation! William Lane Craig, who popularized the Kalam, says this very thing [3]. As ApologeticsPress.Org says:“Philosopher William Lane Craig explains that this argument rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the argument does not “consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the [alleged—JM] Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang” (Craig, 1994). Simply put: the Law of Causality allows for simultaneous causes.” [4]It undermines theism, rather than atheism, to say that simultaneous causation is impossible.[1] http://www.technologyreview.com...[2] Schaffer, Jonathan, Schaffer,. "The Metaphysics of Causation." Stanford University. Stanford University, 02 Feb. 2003. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. [3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[4] http://www.apologeticspress.org...ConclusionPro has failed to defend the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. His Kalam Cosmological Argument is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and general relativity. He ignores many proofs of simultaneous causation, and his two arguments against it are fallacious or unsupported. As I also showed, arguing against simultaneous causation actually undermines theism rather than atheism.Vale