God is not real.

I’d also like to state that I received help before Torvald even posted his response to my argument, and it was completely unrelated to the debate. I just wanted to give him credit for teaching me relevant material. That said, Torvald and I have resolved the issue in a PM. Kalām Cosmological Argument My opponent states that “time likely would not exist outside of a universe, in the void within the multiverse. ” My opponent fails to provide a source for this claim. Besides, the term “multiverse” is so ambiguous it could mean a host of things, such as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or the oscillatory model of the “Big Crunch. ” Both, I might add, require time to operate. Even if my opponent’s statement was true, and time is not needed in the multiverse, one still needs to apply the PSR to this multiverse, and ask for an explanation of its existence. I’ve already explained it could not be necessary, and therefore requires an external cause. Whether or not the multiverse is temporal or atemporal is trivial. My opponent next states that I’ve concluded the cause must be supernatural because of the lack of ultimate explanation. On the contrary, even in my round 1 response, I logically analyzed the properties such a cause must have in order to create all of spacetime reality. I’ll repeat that because the cause transcends time, it must be nonspatiotemporal, which, by ruling abstract mathematical entities out, could only be an unembodied mind. Unless my opponent can dispute my analysis, this explanation for the external cause of the Universe stands. I’ve nowhere argued that simply because science lacks an ultimate explanation, we must resort to the divine. I’ve argued that the cause of the Universe (“nature” in this sense of the word) must necessarily be supernatural. Science can only empirically study nature, so if there were a cause of nature, as my opponent seemingly does not dispute, science could not even begin to discuss it. Once again: science can only test nature, and since the cause of nature is necessarily beyond nature, science cannot test it. What follows is a discussion of primitive belief systems and the characteristic of early science to resort to the divine, most of which is an exercise of the genetic fallacy: why we hold a belief does nothing to show that belief is wrong. [1] Modal Ontological Argument My opponent concedes this point, and thus implicitly concedes the existence of a maximally great being. This alone, nevermind dispute over the KCA, should prove my case. My opponent at the very least recognises this. I hope by the end of this debate I have caused him to rethink his views on theism. (We’ll discuss logic further in a PM). Logical Absence My opponent states, “that science's explanation is incomplete does not make it irrational,” and I completely agree. I’ve nowhere stated that science is irrational. In fact, science’s incomplete view of the Universe is irrelevant to my case: the cause of the Universe is necessarily outside the scope of science’s study. I have nothing to rebut in his next paragraph, as he explicitly acknowledges the superiority of my argument over his. I’d like to remind my opponent that I’m not arguing that because science has an incomplete view of the Universe, we must resort to a supernatural explanation. I am saying that because science can only test nature, as science can only test what is empirically testable, and because we are discussing the Universe’s explanation, science cannot even hypothetically address the issue. Once again, what caused nature is supernatural, and science cannot test the supernatural. So if one concedes nature has an external cause, one concedes it’s beyond the testability of the sciences. I’d like to once again thank my opponent for his contribution to the debate. I have plenty of room left, but as you can see we are shortening our responses with every round. That said, I’d ask my opponent to stick with the debate, as this could be a learning experience if he encounters these arguments in the future. Sources 1. Engel, S. Morris, et al. The Study of Philosophy. p. 141. (. http://goo.gl...)