It is Probable That God Exists

Thanks Pro. Just a quick note, I am using many footnotes, so please read them as it will enhance the understanding of the argument. ----------->ADDRESSING PRO'S OPENING ARGUMENTS<----------------My opponent chooses two arguments for God's existence: The Cosmological Argument (CA hereafter); and the Ontological Arguent (OA hereafter). Both have serious flaws and I will attept to shoot down the argument.C1) THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.1. Everything tht has a beinning has a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore, the universe has a causeObservaion 1: Divine attributes are not knownMy partner's Burden of Proof is to show that there is a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and has the basic attributes of the Judeo-Christian God. The prolem with this argument is that it cannot meet the Burden of Proof. Why think that this cause is God? Moreover, why think that it is your God? God can be the cause, but be evil. Consequently, my opponent hasn't met his BoP. Attack on p1 - Everything that has a beginning has a cause Unless we know that this premise is correct, then the whole argument fails. Do we?Not really. Scientists have found that particles of energy may come into existence, completely uncaused, in empty space. [1] Attack on p2 - The universe began to exist My partner's whole case rests on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I disagree that the universe began to exist. Why? Because there is no such thing as 'nothingness':"In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25) " [2] So, there is really no such thing as a perfect vacuum. What does this mean? It means that there has always been something that has existed in the form of energy. It is possible that the Universe as we know it began as a quantum flucuation around 10-15 billion years ago. [3] You see, the term 'nothing' is not used in physics like our everyday understanding of the absence of anything. The contentions that the 'nothing' of physics is not nothingness. Space is never truly empty -- but we don't need to be exegetical dispute here, since t is quite true that Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum fluctuations occur in preexisting spacetime which always exited.Why the KCA is wrong - The 'B' Theory The B-theory states that both past, present, and future all exist in a rd or n+1d block, and the present is the current image seen o the progression throughout this lock, no more real than those before or after. [4] This makes sense to say taht the universe has had a past space-time boundary, it doesn't make sense to say it 'began to exist' as our bock was always there. The KCA rest on the A-Theory of time [5] which unfortunately for my opponent, and Dr. Craig, most phsycists are B-theorists. [6] C2) THE OAThe Ontological argument attempts to show that God, a maximally great being, exists by neceissity. As we will see, there are a ton of fallacies in such an argument and it doesn't prove God's existence.Formulation1. It is possible that God (a Maximally-Great Being) exists.2. If it is possible that God (MGB) exists, then God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds.3. If God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds.4. If God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in the actual world.5. If God (MGB) exists in the actual world, then God (MGB) exists. Attack on p1 - It is possible that God (a MGB) existsThis is begging the question: What is a maximally great being and why can't we conceive of a MGB without it actually existing? Until my opponent answers these questions, we should reject this argument.Why the OA is wrong - The Fallacy of Equivocation This argument attempts to define God into existence which is something one cannot do. [7] You see, what you are attempting to do is define God two ways: 1) A god who exists in reality; and 2) A God who exists only in the mind. As such, this is the fallacy of equivocation. To understand the argument you are attempting to bring forth in the equiocated fallacy, let's review it as a syllogism:1. Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined.2. God-2 exists.3. God-1 is geater than God-2.4. If God-1 does not exist, than we can imagine something greater than God-2. 5. But we cannot imagin anything greater than God-1.6. Therefore, God-1 exists. [8] That is the fallacy (and the absurdity) that you are arguing. I am out of room and will defend my opening arguments in the next round. Good luck! 1. Vuletic, Mark I. "Creation Ex Nihilo - without God." The Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Freethought. The Secular Web, 2011. Web. 28 May 2012. <http://www.infidels.org...;. Quantum fluctuations are completely random. One can argue that they are not really creation ex nihlo because they require the pre-existence of the universe. However, that completely misses the point. Moreover, we must still recognize that many events are not necessitated by an earlier state. "In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162) Quoted in the URL above. 2.Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall. Quoted in the article, "Creation Ex Nihlo - without God." URL provided in reference 1. 3. This idea isn't far fetched as the understanding of modern physics do allow for this possibility.4. For more, see http://plato.stanford.edu... 5. The A-Theory is just the opposite. It states that only the present exists and the future will come into existence later on. See the url above. 6. I'd like to thank Thrasymachus for first posting on the A-B theory of time in his debate with Mr.Infidel on the same topic at http://www.debate.org.... I did my own research to better understand the idea of the Theory of Time, which can become quite interesting and highy involved. 7. If we could, then why can't we define anything into existence even something as absurd as the tooth fairy?! 8. http://skeptico.blogs.com...