It is likely that a God or gods exist

Burden of Proof My opponent reasons that as long as he can show that atheism is possible, he can use a principle of evaluating explanations known as Occam's Razor to claim that atheism is the best explanation of the universe. There are several things wrong with this. First of all, he would have to show that atheism is plausible, not just probable. Second, he would have to refute my arguments, which he has not done. My arguments work by showing that a god is the best explanation for religious experiences, for the fine-tuning of the universe, and for the origin of the universe. I have given reasons for preferring the God Hypothesis over an atheistic hypothesis like the Multiverse Hypothesis. Third, I agree with William Craig when he says, "I will agree [with the atheist] that when more familiar forms of explanation are available, then we should prefer those. But he has got to show that there are these more familiar forms of explanation available for the facts that I will be discussing, and I don't think that there are" [10]. My opponent has not SHOWN that there is a plausible explanation for religious experiences, and while he references the Multiverse Hypothesis, he does not defend it as an explanation. Furthermore, he claims that all he needs to explain the universe is a cosmological model that does not include God. But if he denies the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, this is no explanation, for how can something come from nothing? Moreover, physicists are only in the business of providing naturalistic models, so naturally they will design models without God, never mind that they don"t explain how something can come from nothing. Since my opponent has not shown that ANY naturalistic hypothesis is more plausible than the God Hypothesis, I think his appeal to Occam"s Razor fails miserably. Argument from Religious Experiences While on theism, we have reason to believe that people would have religious experiences, on atheism, we do not, for according to that worldview God does not exist. So if atheism is true and people have religious experiences, this requires a solid explanation- otherwise, we have good reason for preferring the God Hypothesis over the Atheistic Hypothesis. My opponent finally provides a hypothesis- people yearn for a higher power. But that hardly seems to explain religious experiences. Kids yearn for the Tooth Fairy, but they don"t experience an inner presence of the Tooth Fairy. My opponent also claims that religious belief is a byproduct of evolution but gives no naturalistic reasoning to believe that this is so. I however, provide a very clear, simple, non-ad hoc, plausible explanation for religious experiences, namely that gods exist. My opponent also asks if the existence of ghosts is a good explanation for the belief in ghosts. No! First, people do not experience an inner presence of ghosts. Second, people more often believe in ghosts because of easily debunked media footage or sounds in the attic. Third, if ghosts existed, we would expect much more evidence of their existence. But many more people report feeling an inner presence of God than they report feeling the inner presence of a ghost. In order to demonstrate to Con how much more real the belief in God is compared to the belief in ghosts, I cite ex-Christian Mark Vulvetic on his personal religious experiences. He says, "You have to understand that atheism just was not a live option for me at all--it was on par with the notion that there might not actually be a material world at all. .. After all, I had personal experience of god--I knew his existence and his goodness first-hand" [11]. Nobody would say anything like that in regards to the belief in ghosts! Clearly, the God Hypothesis is still the best explanation for religious experiences. Fine-Tuning Argument I must confess, I am astonished to see such abysmal objections to the fine-tuning argument in my opponent's last rebuttal. As I showed in my initial speech, the fine-tuning is well-documented. Even if my opponent thinks that entropy is not fine-tuned for the universe, other constants are, and they require an explanation. My opponent misunderstands the anthropic principle and the Barnes thought experiment. The anthropic principle explains NOTHING about why we are here. My opponent might be trying to say that he does not like the semantics of the word "fine-tuned. " He can call the phenomenon a different word if he wants to, but the fact is, it is highly improbable, on naturalism, that several constants of the universe would be geared towards allowing life. He might object that I am assuming that the purpose was for life, but I already answered that objection- it could be that the purpose of the universe is for interesting chemistry instead, but fine-tuning must still be explained. Finally, my opponent does not address my arguments against a multiverse. Arguments extend. Cosmological Argument I would like to review the arguments I gave to justify the first premise in my opening statement. I claimed that 1) Something cannot come out of nothing, because nothing has no properties. 2) If the first premise is not true, why doesn't anything and everything come out of nothing? 3) The truth of the first premise is shown through everyday experience. My opponent"s speed of light analogy does nothing to refute argument 1. If nothing has no properties, how can something come out of nothing? Furthermore, Con claimed that the causal principle cannot work because there is no time before the beginning of the universe, but I gave an analysis of what the causal principle means in order to show that this does not refute the first premise. In response, my opponent just chooses to attack the intuition/common sense of the definition rather than answer my first two arguments. Moreover, my opponent seems to not understand what a metaphysical law is and how it differs from a physical law. Craig says, "These are putative metaphysical claims, unrestricted in their application. Such claims are not contingent upon the properties, causal powers, and dispositions of the natural kinds of substances which happen to exist" [8]. Metaphysical laws are not dependent on physical properties, so the beginning of the universe cannot be exempt from them. Finally, my opponent completely ignores my claim that causes can be simultaneous with their effect, such as a ball causing an indent on a cushion from eternity past. This argument extends. As for the BGV Theorem, Guth may have a personal bias towards a beginning of the universe, but Vilenkin has written a paper without him that concludes that the universe probably began to exist, as I cited in my previous round. All my opponent has to say about Hilbert's Hotel is that it is strange. But it shows that if one subtracts infinity by infinity, one gets contradictory answers. This is absurd! It may be logically possible, but it certainly is not metaphysically possible! This argument remains standing. Conclusion My opponent has provided essentially NO argument for atheism to support his burden of proof. I have provided three arguments, namely the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experiences. I have refuted all his rebuttals. I thank my opponent for the debate, and I urge voters to VOTE PRO. [10] . http://www.leaderu.com... [11] . http://infidels.org... [8] . http://www.leaderu.com...