God (Probably) Exists

Thanks, Aithlin!And again, I'm really sorry about having to cut short last round. This round, I will defend my refutations of the KCA and present my refutations of the Fine-Tuning argument.== KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT == 1. Beginning to ExistPro argues that when something "begins to exist" in the context of the KCA, it does not necessarily mean that there was nothing before that. However, there is a painful lack of elucidation here... all Pro does to defend this claim is present a short quote by William Lane Craig with no further elaboration upon it at all; what is a "tensed fact" anyways? It is pretty much common sense that if something comes into existence where there was originally nothing, then there is an increase in mass/energy. If Pro wants to deny this, he's going to need to explain himself; not just name some abstract philosophical concept...2. Cosmological ConstantPro argues that we *can* see things come into existence even if the entirety of space within the universe is already occupied because, in accordance with his "tensed fact" point, beginning to exist does not require an increase in mass, so something can come into existence from something else. However, this is not really "beginning to exist" anymore, as much as it is simply another change. It is true that "virtual particles" can emerge from the cosmological constant, giving the impression that they are "beginning to exist", but this is *still* simply a *change* on the quantum level (http://profmattstrassler.com...). And anyways, this has nothing to do with my original point... I was originally trying to argue that we cannot assume things like "nothing comes from nothing" based on our observations within the universe because *actual* nothing does not exist within the universe for us to observe, thanks to the cosmological constant. Pro has not really addressed this, instead going off on some tangent about how things can *appear* to come into existence, when in fact they are merely undergoing change.3. Metaphysical IntuitionsPro argues that our metaphysical intuitions are not necessarily based entirely on our observations, citing the following logic instead, to support the metaphysical intuition of 'ex nihilo nihil fit' :"Something cannot come from nothing, because there is no properties of nothing that enables something come from out from it eg. no potentiality. In fact, it has no properties at all."However, I will once again argue that my opponent has absolutely NO way of knowing this to be true... absolute nothingness has not ever been witnessed by humans, and most likely does not exist within our universe. We can know nothing of its properties or lack of properties, much less what is possible within it. Thus, the ultimate source of metaphysical intuitions is sensory perception, which is wholly shaped by the existence of space-time; since space-time did not exist at the time of the Big Bang, our metaphysical intuitions become unreliable in determining what was or was not possible prior to the Big Bang.Sub-Conclusion: the KCA's first premise is completely devoid of warrant, thus rendering the entire argument logically unsound.== FINE-TUNING / TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT == Pro's argument here is basically that there is no viable explanation for the Universe's fine-tuning other than design. Thus, if I can give at least one viable explanation for the universe's fine-tuning, then his whole argument will fall apart, as it would no longer support God's probable existence.1. Physical NecessityThis explanation of fine-tuning objects to the very basis of the teleological argument: the idea that physical constants *could* have been different. This explanation, instead, states that physical laws are *necessarily* the way that they are.For example, what does Pro mean by "if such physical laws are even changed in the slightest"? Does he mean to say that such physical laws could have turned out to be different? By the same logic, does he mean to say that the laws of mathematics could have turned out to be different? Certain laws simply couldn't have been different, being necessary in nature. There is no reason to believe that the universe's constants could have turned out differently, as Pro is arguing. We may be able to imagine them being different, and even calculate what the Universe may have been like in such circumstances, but that in no way means that those constants could *actually* could have turned out differently. It is perfectly plausible that the universe's physical laws and constants are necessarily "set" the way they are, thus explaining the universe's apparent fine-tuning.2. Multiverse TheoryLet's assume that physical laws *are* contingent (i.e. able to be different). Even then there are viable ways to explain our universe's fine-tuning. One of the most popular explanations is the Multiverse theory, which states that there are an infinite number of universes, with every single physically possible universe occurring at least once. In that case, our universe, with all its contingent laws/constants being set the way they are, just happens to be one of those universes; a universe like our's was inevitable.Of course, this explanation would only be viable if there was some sort of evidence making the Multiverse theory plausible. And the evidence most definitely is there:"The first direct evidence of cosmic inflation — a period of rapid expansion that occurred a fraction of a second after the Big Bang — also supports the idea that our universe is just one of many out there, some researchers say...The new research also lends credence to the idea of a multiverse. This theory posits that, when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes. The known universe has its own laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept.'It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse,' Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. 'It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.'Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse."http://www.space.com...Sub-Conclusion: I have presented two viable explanations for the Universe's apparent fine-tuning, ensuring that the Teleological argument does not prove that God probably exists.== CONCLUSION ==In conclusion, neither the KCA nor the FTA successfully affirm the resolution, by default rendering the resolution negated, since BOP is on Pro.I hand the debate back over to my opponent for the final round!