Resolved: god Probably exists

"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. "This is a deeply flawed premise, mainly because there is very little to back it up. Furthermore my opponent starts off by committing a fallacy. The KCA posits that the universe came about ex-nihilo (out of nothing). However my opponent only backs up this premise by showing that things come into existence ex-materia. My opponent asserts that this is an observed fact. I however have to very strongly disagree. Pro fails to give a single account of not only things beginning to exist, but things beginning to exist by cause of something else. He only demonstrates how tools, computers and such were made. However we again need to draw a fine line between ex-materia and ex-nihilo. Tools were made from pre-existing material. The metal and wood used to make the object already existed. It was just re-shaped into a different form thus came about ex-materia. If something comes into existence ex-nihilo however than there would be a point in which the matter did exist. Therefore there was nothing, then there was something. Premise one of the Kalam Cosmological Argument posits the universe coming about ex-nihilo and my opponent has only shown examples of things coming about ex-materia. Therefore we can conclude my opponent has brought about zero evidence that things coming about ex-nihilo must be caused despite his claims that this is an observed fact. My opponent also admittedly appeals to intuition but in order to logically address issues we must look at it solely logically and factually. Taner Edis says himself, "Quantum mechanics is so counter-intuitive, physicists have never been able to come up with a comfortable picture of how it works. " Appealing to intuition is a logical fallacy because our intuition can be flawed. Only when we logically justify a claim ignoring our intuition can we view it as sound. . http://atheism.about.com...Quantum fluctuations Note, my opponent mentions this but does not negate it. Now in truth we cannot really observe absolute nothing. But the closest we can come to nothing is empty space. The appearance of "virtual particles" have been observed to come into being spontaneously and stochastically in empty space, meaning there is no external cause and it is impossible to predict when it will happen. Quantum fluctuations are the "temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation. " Now though the source says "out of nothing", empty space is not literally nothing but the closest to nothing we can get. We have yet to observe anything coming from nothing but lets re-cap on this premise. My opponent supports the premise by showing that things beginning ex-materia have a cause. I show that from the closest we can get to nothing we observe things appearing completely uncaused. Let's weigh that together. The Kalam Cosmological argument asserts that everything that began to exist from nothing has a cause. My opponent brings up examples of things created from material already there. Hmmm, so my opponent is supporting x by showing that we have observed y when really y has no relevance on x. I however show x false by observation to the contrary. I think we can find this premise largely refuted. . http://universe-review.ca...As Taner Edis says, "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. Energy fluctuations out of nothing create short-lived particle-antiparticle pairs, which is why the vacuum is not emptiness but a sea of transient particles. An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the imagination. " . http://atheism.about.com...Cause of God/infinite regression of causesP.1 According to my opponent, everything that begins to exist has a cause. P.2 According to my opponent infinity is impossible. P.3 Disregarding infinity, if something exists that something must be caused. P.4 God is something. P.5 God requires a cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a contention that appeals to our intuition. It may seem prima facie sound when looking at its premises but at a deeper look we find it brings up a regression of questions, at least the way my opponent argues it. It asserts that everything that begins to exist has a cause. If everything is finite than everything has a cause. My opponent himself affirms that everything is finite by his own arguments that infinity is impossible (a contention I have no reason to negate). If we assume this logic, it follows that everything that exists has a cause. Notice, one step away from saying everything that begins to exist. Now we get to the problem of circularity and infinite regression. If everything single thing in existence must be caused we are affronted with the paradox of infinite aggression. To demonstrate, if a exists than b caused a and b must then be caused by x and x by y and y by q, and so on. This creates an impossible infinite regression of causes as well as begging the question, what caused God? By my opponents own logic, God is a finite being (by impossibility to the contrary) therefore God must be caused by something, and that something by something, and that something by something else, etc. .. "2. The universe began to exist. "I will not negate this point. "3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. "Premise one is flawed rendering the conclusion negated. Hidden premiseOne noticeable fact about my opponents syllogism is that we could fully accept it and still not be conceding the existence of God. I say this because the conclusion states that the universe has a cause. What it doesn't state is that the cause is God. Sounds like the God of the gaps fallacy to me. My opponent needs to support his argument by showing that if the universe was indeed caused than it was caused by God and not one of the many other possible explanations.