It is likely that a God or gods exist

I would like to give a few observations before I begin. First, it is true that the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument provide evidence for an external creator, but my Argument from Religious Experiences does not assume that the divine is necessarily a creator. People had religious experiences in Ancient Greece as well. So while it is true that I am arguing for a creator God, I am also providing evidence that supports the existence of non-creator gods such as Athena as well, and my opponent has done nothing to refute any conception of a non-creator god. Second, I still maintain that using TinyURL links just to squeeze as many characters as possible into the debate, since “sources are worth almost as much as argument, and should take from the argument character limit” [8]. Third, in this round, my opponent claims that I dropped several arguments. This is completely false, as I clearly responded to them, as is evident to anyone who rereads round 3. No amount of asterisks can change that fact. Actually, in several cases I could respond to my opponent’s claims just by repeating what I have said in round 2 and round 3. Arguments for Atheism Argument Against Causality My opponent completely ignores my objections and instead restates assertions that I have already refuted. For example, I argued for simultaneous causation- causes do not have to proceed their effects in time. I also argued that God, as a supernatural being, does not have to follow the laws of entropy. My arguments extend. Quantum Superposition Argument My house analogy still applies, and my opponent has not refuted it. Moreover, God is defined as a supernatural being, so by definition God does not have to obey the laws of nature. Practically every conception of God is immune to the laws of nature- I am not defending a god who is constrained by them! I think any reasonable voter will agree with me on this point. So this argument for atheism also fails. Argument Against Atemporal Minds My opponent simply restates the argument, and I would like to refer him back to what I said in round 3. A mind need not change- it can hold ideas forever. Moreover, William Craig’s conception of God is of a God that is omnitemporal rather than atemporal [13], and this argument does nothing to refute that conception of God. Vacuum Fluctuation Argument My opponent claims that I have confused a vacuum fluctuation model with a vacuum genesis model. Quite frankly, both names sound indistinguishable to me, and this seems like a disingenuous attempt to try to change the argument in order to avoid my criticisms in round 3. In a previous debate with Philocat, Philocat says that Tejretics argues that a quantum fluctuation created the universe, a claim that Tejretics did not object to [14]. But let’s look at the case that Tejretics presented in round 2 of this debate (by the way, he did this *extremely* poorly, piecing together quotations with barely any explanation on how they fit together or support his case). His first source is a paper by Quentin Smith, who, in the quote that Con cites, says that quantum models represent the beginning as a “vacuum fluctuation” [15]. Con also cites Wikipedia on quantum fluctuations [16]. Most damning of all, when Con cites the zero-energy hypothesis, he quotes a paper literally titled, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? ” [17]. In short, I urge Con to actually respond to my rebuttals in round 3, rather than dishonestly claim that I have confused the argument in order to avoid my refutations. We agree on Occam’s Razor, but it only applies if Con refutes my arguments, which he has failed to do. Arguments for Theism Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) The KCA still stands, thanks to what I have said previously. My opponent also fails to respond to my arguments for the causal premise and for a personal creator, so these extend. Fine-Tuning Argument My opponent claims that somehow the second law of thermodynamics can show that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to necessity and chance. However, he does not explain how or why. Frankly, throughout this debate, when it comes to scientific claims, my opponent has improperly used sources, throwing them together without explaining or developing them, as well as using Wikipedia, a source which can be modified by anyone. He cites Stephen Hawking’s book, The Grand Design, in support of his claim. I do not have that book, but here is something we can all read- Craig’s response to it [18]. Craig explains that Hawking, contrary to my opponent’s claim, rejects physical necessity and instead argues for a multiverse explanation. But, as explained in round 3, if my opponent’s vacuum fluctuation model is correct, then we would witness an infinitely old universe, not a multiverse. There are other problems with a multiverse. Robin Collins offers five reasons to reject the Multiverse Hypothesis for the God Hypothesis, one of which is that any universe-generating mechanism would also need to be designed [19]. A couple other arguments are that the God Hypothesis is simpler to the Multiverse Hypothesis and that the Multiverse Hypothesis is an ad hoc attempt to avoid the God Hypothesis. If my opponent wants to rely on the Multiverse Hypothesis, he needs to create a plausible case for it. Religious Experiences My opponent lists several criteria for a good explanation, to which I will add one- plausibility. He then gives several criticisms of the God Hypothesis. Con says that a psychological explanation is simpler. But I explained in rounds 2 and 3 that Occam’s Razor works given the evidence that we have, and I have shown in rounds 2 and 3 that the God hypothesis is much more plausible than a psychological one. Under whatever measure of “simple” Con is using, it would be simpler for me to assume that my sensation of my computer in front of me is purely psychological, since the assumption that it actually exists involves a more complex explanation requiring more than psychology. Con says there is diversity of religious experiences, but he completely ignores the parable I used to counter this objection in round 2 [7]. Just because the blind men think the elephant is different does not mean the elephant does not exist. Con claims that the God Hypothesis is outside of background knowledge, but this is not true- the KCA and fine-tuning argument show that we do have background knowledge for God. Con forgets that my case is cumulative. Con argues that it is difficult to test the God Hypothesis. On the contrary, I think the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe provide good tests for God. Moreover, if the divine exists, we would expect that a large proportion of the world believes in the divine (as shown in round 2) [5]. The fact that people perceive the divine as just as real as the external world, as Mark Vulvetic did, provides further evidence for this [6]. Con elaborates on neurological explanations of belief, but there are at least two good responses to this. First, people in real life are not stuck in laboratories being bombarded by magnetic waves. Belief and experiences outside of the laboratory must be explained differently than this. Second, if God exists, it is not unsurprising that our brains should be designed so that we can be more receptive to him. On naturalism, however, it is very unclear why evolution would design us to believe in something that does not exist. So my opponent’s evidence does not, after all, support his case that the majority of the people in the world are delusional and mentally ill. My opponent also asks why we should not believe in fairies if the Argument from Religious Experiences works. But belief in the divine is nothing like belief in fairies. Most people do not feel an inner presence of fairies like Mark Vulvetic did. Nor do most people believe in fairies. Nor do we have good arguments for fairies, etc. So this fairy analogy simply does not work. Hence, my opponent fails to refute the Argument from Religious Experiences. Conclusion I have shown that the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experiences all succeed. I have also successfully refuted my opponent’s arguments. In particular, I want to highlight my opponent’s dishonesty when defending his vacuum fluctuation argument. Moreover, I want to highlight my opponent’s poor, haphazard, disorganized, unclear use of sources. Sometimes my opponent uses Wikipedia as a source. Much of the time, he cites sources without adequately explaining them and showing how exactly they support his argument. His sources actually show that, contrary to what he claims, he supports a vacuum fluctuation model of the universe, a model I already refuted in round 3. In general, my opponent never refuted a number of claims that I made in round 3. Unless my opponent successfully responds to my objections, I think we can conclude that theism is more probable than atheism. [8] . https://docs.google.com... [13] Craig, William Lane. , and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. God? : A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. 110-11. Print. [14] . http://www.debate.org... [15] . http://infidels.org... [16] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [17] . http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [18] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [19] . http://www.discovery.org... [7] . http://www.cs.princeton.edu... [5] . http://www.pewforum.org... [6] . http://infidels.org...