SPinko Tournament: God probably exists. (Rd. 1)

I will first refute my partner's arguments and then defend my own, if space and time permits. Note that both of my partner's arguments came from Thomas Aquias "Five Ways. "I. THE ARGUMENT FROM MOTION 1. Motion is clearly observed in the natural world (things change)2. Nothing can put itself in motion unless acted upon by another force. Namely things cannot go from its potential to its actual without another actual force changing it. Aquinas demonstrates this with an example of wood, heat and fire. Fire, which is an actually hot substance, moves (changes) a piece of wood, which is potentially hot to being actually hot.3. Nothing can itself be both the mover (the changer) and the moved (the changed). For example, the wood cannot itself change from wood to fire without first the fire being the mover.4. Since there is movement (change) in the universe than each thing must be moved from something prior to it. However, this cannot go on forever because then no beginning movement could have occurred to cause the movement.5. This first mover is functionally necessary to explain this line of movement. This must be God. Begging the QuestionThis argument begs a few questions: If everything needs a mover aside from God, then why couldn't the universe had come into existence based upon its own force? What motivated God to make his "first move"? Either he has been moving from infinity or has been moving ever since. What then is the source of God's energy? Why does the God have to be the God you defined? For example, the God that caused the first move can be: Not omnipotent; Not omniscient; and Not aphysical. [1] Premise 2 is wrong This argument basically states that something cannot come from nothing. However, we know this is wrong in light of quantum fluctuations which are random and uncaused. Talk Origins notes:From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. [2] Premise 3 is wrong Based upon quantum fluctuations, we know that premise 3 is also wrong. It is both the mover and the moved. II. ARGUMENT FROM EFFICENT CAUSES 1. Contingent beings exist. This means that there exists stuff which could not have existed, namely its existence isn't explainable through itself (i. e. we don't have to exist) but we do.2. These contingent beings cannot be spanned infinitely backwards, because removing the initial cause would necessitate the removal of the subsequent effects.3. There must exist an entity whose nature causes its own existence – this must be God. Like the above argument, there are some flaws that I am going to point out. The argument, like the one above, cannot determine the attributes of God. Consequently, my partner has failed to meet his Burden of Proof. I accept partially that anything that exists is caused by another. However, as seen in quantum fluctuations above, that isn't entirely true. Once more, you are using the assumption that there can be no infinite regression. If this is correct, then doesn't God have to have a cause? According to Einstein's equation e=mc2, matter can indeed be converted into energy and energy can be converted to matter. Logically, we can suppose that matter and energy could have been into existence for eternity. My theory is that the universe is indeed infinite in age, but has evolved over time; the last major event occuring c. 15 billion years ago in the Big Bang. Conclusion None of my partner's 2 ways hold any water. They cannot determine God's attributes, contradict the conclusion, and fail in light of quantum fluctuations. DEFENSE OF MY ARGUMENTS! I apologize for the strong atheism case. I will drop that argument and bring a new one up in its place. A CASE FOR WEAK ATHEISMI argued that atheism is the default position making a case for weak atheism (lack of beliefs in Gods). [3] My partner asked why is God's existence an extraordinary claim? This is a good question and I'd like to review the definition of an extraordinary claim:"An extraordinary claim is any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world. " God's existence is certainly most extraordinary. First, let's look at some examples and ask yourself “which one do you immediately reject, and why? ” 1) I am a member of Facebook, 2) I won the multi-million dollar lottery, and 3) I own a transportation mechanism that transports you from point A to point B in under 1 second. Which one do you immediately reject without further ado, and why? If you guessed point 3, you would be correct—and totally justified in rejecting proposition 3. Allow me to explain why. According to Facebook stats, Facbeook currently have 350,000,000 members [4] hence, to claim that I am a member of Facebook is not unheard of, nor is it an extraordinary claim. Claim 2 is certainly more extraordinary than the first; however, people have won the lottery before so it is not unheard of—in order for one to accept this claim, one may need to look at just my lottery ticket, or the numbers on TV. However, claim 3 is quite different. In order to accept claim 3 with just my word, you will have to: 1) Change your current views on the technology of today, 2) Change your views on how people transport from point A to point B, and 3) Change your perspective on the person making such a ridiculous claim (and ridiculous is quite appropriate). So, you see, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. So, what type of evidence is there for God? I contend that there is no evidence; it will be my partner's burden to prove so. In the words of Keith Augustine: "God, as conceived by the major religions, does not exist. I hold this neither dogmatically, nor as an article of faith. Rather, I think the existence of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God is as improbable as the existence of Zeus and the plethora of Olympian gods. I am simply more consistent in my skepticism. I have the same amount of evidence for the existence of Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah as I have for Zeus--none. " [5] Next, what is an extraordinary evidence? Once more, great question! Extraordinary evidence is any evidence that proves the extraordinary claim or makes the caim more probable than not. Out of room. ___________________________Footenotes and Sources 1. The questions 1-3 are from . http://patas.co.... Moreover, God can exist and be phsycial. There is nothing in God's nature that can prevent that. Moreover, we soon see that God's attributes cannot be known from this argument. 2. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory: . http://www.talkorigins.org...;3. This is different from agnosticism. "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates. .. it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you without regard to any other considerations. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. " For more, see . http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...;4. . http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com...;5. From the debate . http://www.infidels.org...;(note: this is the link that didn't work for you in the previous round).