Resolved: The Cosmological Argument Fails to Prove God

Causes Pro grossly misinterprets the kind of cause I argue for. It's somehow completely different to everything I said last round. Pro's cause is materialistic and infinite in energy and time. God is immaterial, not composed of energy, and not infinite in time because he transcends time. There's essentially nothing even similar about the two, except that they offer an explanation for our universe. Last round I stated the properties of the cause the CA would lead to is a, transcendent, necessary, timeless, sentient intelligence who is extraordinarily powerful. The cause pro advocates is not transcendent, not necessary, not timeless, not sentient and not powerful. God is also a first cause, whereas pro's eternal multiverse can't have a first cause since it exists for eternity. Pro says the only difference between my cause and his cause is sentience. This just proves that he's completely misunderstood the argument! Here's a much more accurate chart.Multiverse-Infinite in energy-Infinite in time-Eternity of causes-MaterialisticGod-Not composed of energy-Not infinite but transcends time-First cause-Exists necessarily-Immaterial-Sentient-Extremely powerfulObviously very different. Pro's argument would only be convincing to someone who wasn't paying attention to anything I wrote. I also want to correct pro that I argue for an uncaused first cause, not just a cause.Pro asks why abstractions cannot create a universe. Is this a serious question? Do numbers have any causal power? The possibility abstractions causing a universe is zero. A mind however, could, if powerful enough, create the universe because it does have causal powers. Any mind can potentially cause things so all it has to be is powerful for it to be able to cause the universe, which is why it is not hard to draw God as the conclusion from the CA, since it leads to an extremely powerful mind as the only explanation.Pro says, "Con cannot simply assert that there was no matter or energy before our universe". Pro needs to understand the CA leads to a first uncaused cause. This means it was the cause of all matter and energy. If there was any material existence before the big-bang, it just means the beginning of matter and energy was sooner than the start of our universe. It doesn't change anything at all. In fact, most theologians would include any pre-material existence as part of the definition of "universe". This is what I will assume but either way nothing changes. It's unimportant.Multiverse I was astonished when pro said he doesn't have to argue for string theory since it's the leading theory in modern physics as the contender for the sought after "theory of everything". It's a massive appeal to popularity. It ignores everything I and physicists said against it. For one thing, it may be popular, but no one would say it's been proven. Brian Greene, a person pro sites, as I already showed, does not believe in it because there's no scientific evidence for it. Greene is a very big figure in String theory but says he only believes in things that have observational and experimental proof which String theory does not have. And then I also showed Lee Smolin, a person who used to advocate String theory, basically saying it's had it's turn.Pro cannot ignore major physicists opinions simply because String theory is popular. Roger Penrose, "A theorist whose name will be forever linked with such giants as Hawking and Einstein" is apposed to it [1] Also, Richard Feynman.[2] There's plenty more trust me, but I don't need to go on. It's amazing that pro would say viewers should just "trust the physicists". Can we please treat this as an actual debate? In addition, appealing to the popularity of theories in theoretical physics is even worse than actually observed and tested theories. String theory hasn't reached observational or experimental stages which makes the appeal even worse.So what else does pro say? I'm afraid he attacks something I never said which was that String theory doesn't argue for the multiverse. Now to pros credit, looking back I can see a couple sentences that could have implied that, however that was not at all what I was saying and it should have been at least clear, taking my whole case. My argument was that theoretical physics does not point to the multiverse, because all it does is show it's conceivable. Pro has also completely neglected to respond to my rebuttal of the argument for infinity that a 3 dimensional reality is made up of an infinite amount of 2 dimensional planes all adjoining to one another, a 4 dimensional reality with infinite 3 dimensional planes so on. Last round I pointed out pro gave no warrant to this claim and the assumption that space has no spatial boundary. He's chosen to not continue this argument. I also pointed out that though pro argues time is infinite, his argument was only for 3 dimensional spatial planes and so on. Time is a 1 dimensional non spatial plane, so how did anything that he argued point to an infinity in time? InfinityPros response just begs the question. He says the explanation is just that they're different infinities. Okay, well if there are different infinities in reality, surely there are some infinities that are the same? Surely if I search throughout the infinite multiverse I'll find some infinite copy of someone/something that fits to the same infinite copy of me, right? Well why not? If there are different values of infinity, pro has to concede that some of those infinities are of the exact same value. So we can assume for sake of the analogy that the infinity of copies of pro, is the same as the infinities of copies of me, as well as the rooms, and then we're still at the problem. Pro hasn't escaped the issues at all.In addition, the problem with pro's first video about infinity is it does not apply in the scenario I had. An infinite set of integers is less than the infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but is this kind of mathematics in any way applicable to our scenario? In the video he used sheep as an example, but in reality you can only count sheep as the value of an integer. So if the scenario were in real life, each sheep could only be the value of an integer. The second video even shows you can't lay out an infinite amount of decimal numbers like you can with other types, so even in mathematics it's a problem. Surely then it can't be applicable to reality.The second video also is completely inapplicable to a real life scenario. It claims that an infinity of positive integers is less than an infinity of both negative and positive integers. But how do you assign negative and positive values in real life? It could only be arbitrary. We could assign an infinite amount of copies of me as negative and another infinite as positive. It's the exact same as with odd and even, so nothing solved.ConclusionPro assumes the multiverse and God both posses similar properties so that if you take out all unwarranted properties of God, you essentially just get the multiverse. However, when we look at the properties of both, everything pro claimed about their similarities were wrong and ignored my entire explanation of God in the last round. Reasons to believe in the multiverse are merely Superstrings explanatory power. However scientific evidence for String theory is essentially zero. Even Brian Greene states that there is no observational or experimental evidence for it. It hasn't been tested or observed. It doesn't even make predictions that we can test. All you can give it is it's mathematical comprehensibility.Also, you can make a step by step to deduction to find the cause of the universe would have to be a transcendent, necessary, timeless extraordinarily powerful, sentient intelligence. Ergo, God.I'll say it again. Pro's case would only be convincing to someone who payed no attention to what I said. Any tentative reader should accept my side as most superiorly argued in this debate.[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...