Deism vs Atheism

Pro cleared up what he meant by God. I feel Pro should clear it up in future debates instead of using a vague definition of God that can be left up to interpretation. I still feel as if Pro is redefining God, away from the typical idea of “God”. That’s why I said it’s kinda like Pantheism. I didn’t mean for you to think my Pantheist comment was an argument. It wasn’t a contention at all and I didn’t say Pro was a Pantheist, I said Pro was like a Pantheist. Similar in the sense of redefining God away from the typical definition, but not completely. But I feel I still have a case against this God. First Cause My first objection wasn’t really responded to. He agreed with me somewhat and said “What I have really concluded is it's the most reasonable belief today, with our current understanding of the universe” However, I pointed out that Pro is only doing this by attacking alternate models. Pro never proved Deism was more reasonable, he just attacked the alternatives without proving his case. Pro left my first objection untouched. Pro then tries to respond to my unintelligible argument. He does pretty much the same thing as above, he agreed somewhat then disagreed by stating his position with no evidence to back it up. Pro says he thinks it’s more reasonable to think something existed as opposed to nothing. If Pro agreed with my argument, he wouldn’t take this position. We can’t make that claim if we have no idea what was before, so Pro is just agreeing with my argument, then turning around and disagreeing with it. Never responding to the argument in question, that since we don’t know we shouldn’t believe in Pro’s proposition. The difference between the skepticism of these things you mentioned and a creator of the universe is that we are pretty certain that the universe began at the big bang. Even if causality didn't exist before the big bang, causality existed at the moment of creation. It's evident that the universe had a cause, because it began to exist. Again, disagreeing with the argument without responding to it. The universe would have come from a state that’s not of our universe. Since we have no idea what this non-universe state was we can’t conclude it must have a cause and can’t conclude what existed before. Causality existing at the moment of creation is utterly irrelevant, because the moment of creation is not a non universe state! My argument remains standing Ex Nihilo Pro ignores my argument. The reason why different things can’t do certain things is because they have a restriction on them. If something came from nothing, this would be because it lacks a property, not because it has one. If there was something restricting nothing, then it wouldn’t be nothing.So, why can’t something come from nothing? Pro said the universe's laws break down, then contradicted himself by stating some laws must exist “Sure, the universe's laws break down at the big bang, but there must have been something in order to have a universe exist. Even if there were irrational laws that suddenly allowed the universe to form, they would still be considered laws, and thus something.” According to Pro, those laws would have broke. Pro said the laws that allow virtual particles to form causes them. He gave no source for this and thus committed the bare assertion fallacy [1]. His source in his opening statement only said the particles interacted with laws once they were in existence and that vacuum fields are analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles. Even if these particles were reliant on laws, this doesn’t mean the laws gave them the ability to come into being. Perhaps the could only exist with these laws, but this doesn’t mean such laws gave it the ability to come into existence. Another thing about virtual particles is that the particles are only reliant on nothing to exist. So, something did come from nothing. Even in a perfect vacuum—a region of space containing neither matter nor energy—particle-antiparticle pairs (such as an electron and its antiparticle opposite, the positron) constantly appear and disappear in a time span too short to observe. Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing—not even from energy— it so happens that no laws of physics are violated because the particle is annihilated by its corresponding antiparticle before either one can be detected. [2] - Harvard. A vacuum itself isn’t nothing because of these particles, but the particles do indeed come from nothing, uncaused. Occam's Razor Saying God could’ve been caused by something else only helps my case when dealing with Occam’s razor. Pro is complicating his case and thus helping mine here. I should’ve phrased it by saying that the deist must fall back on an uncaused something. Nonetheless, Pro just helped my case in the first part of this section. Next, Pro commits the logical fallacy of the straw man [3]. Pro attacks the eternal universe, but my argument is not based on the idea that the universe is eternal. I’m curious why Pro brought this up, because I said I wouldn’t dispute the eternal universe section, so why would I build an argument that makes me dispute it? A god could be uncaused in the sense of being eternal, from nothing, or some other way we don’t understand. I’m saying it’s best to say the universe is uncaused by the last two via the razor. My argument is unrefuted. I feel all of my arguments are still unrefuted and still standing strong. Sources [1] http://fallacies.findthedata.org... [2] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu... [3] http://fallacies.findthedata.org...