The Best Evidence/Argument For God's Existence

AveI want to begin by noting that the defenses of P1 (1.2, 1.2) and P2 (2.1, 2.2) stand at this point in the debate. Con doesn't dispute that P3 is entailed by P1 and P2. This means that P1, P2, and P3 of the argument are affirmed.Furthermore, my criticisms of Contentions 1, 2, and 4 from Con's round 2 have been left alone in his previous round.Now, let's turn to the contentions offered by Con.Respone OneContrary to Con's claim, there is nothing "extremely vague" about the terms in P1. A conscious being is simply a being that can think, an abstract object is something like the number three or the word "love", and a non-personal force is an unconscious, non-abstract power which brings the universe into being. I would agree with Con if he considers the idea of a non-personal force to be ill-defined, and that's exactly why I'm so critical of the idea that it caused the universe. It's not a clear and well-explained concept which is lacking in explanation. At best, this amounts to a subjective dislike of the first premise.Con says that I if I state that the possible causes of the universe are a conscious being, an abstract object, or a non-personal force, then the non-personal force has to be something that is unconscious and non-abstract. Well, that's exactly what I've done! If the non-personal force were conscious, then you would have a self-contradiction, because that's akin to saying that an unconscious force is conscious. If you state that the non-personal force is abstract, then the category of a non-personal force is redundant and falls into the second category "abstract objects". The first premise is worded in such a way that it's necessary for the non-personal force is unconscious and non-abstract. By his own standards, he should accept the terms.Con states that I haven't demonstrated premise two. This only assumes the corectness of his own arguments against my proof of premise two.Response TwoI asked Con to cite the specific part of my argument where I appealed to ignorance. Strangely, none of what he quotes has anything to do with appealing to ignorance. I didn't argue that a non-personal force could not have caused the universe because it has not been proven to be true. I also didn't argue that "A non-personal cause of the universe is implausible" because that statement hasn't been disproven. Rather,my argument just states that a personal cause is more plausible than a non-personal cause.Con's outline of my reasoning is false. He says that I concluded that a personal cause is a better explanation than a non-personal cause because a personal cause has no evidence. That's not an accurate description of my argument at all. I concluded that a personal cause is a better explanation than a non-personal cause because it is explanatorily superior. In other words, it explains a fact about the universe better. There is all the difference in the world between saying "A is better than B because A is explanatorily superior", and "A is better than B because B has no evidence". It's the former argument, rather than the latter, that's being advanced in the debate.Con argues that I've watered down my argument from "A personal cause is necessarily the explanation" to "A personal cause is the best explanation". I've contended from the very start of this debate that a personal cause is the best explanation. If you read my opening statement, then you'll find that I wrote: "A personal explanation is therefore the best explanation of the universe, affirming premise four." Con is accusing me of changing my argument, but this fails miserably, because my assertions have been consistent from the beginning.Response ThreeNotice that the fundamental problem with a non-personal force as the cause of the universe has not been solved. The question before is "Why, if a non-personal force was floating around sans the universe, did space and time suddenly begin to exist?". This is the problem from hell for anyone who asserts a non-personal force caused the universe. You can't give the answer in terms of will ("The force chose to create the universe"), because then you're dealing with a personal, rather than non-personal cause. You can't give the answer in terms of a mechanism ("Some process happened that led caused it to create the universe"), because then you're left with explaining why that mechanism happened to occur 13.9 billion years ago.The ridiculous nature of a non-personal cause is even more apparent once we realize the universe we live in. We live in a universe with extremely fine-tuned constants. For example, if the neutron to proton mass ratio was different, then there would be too much helium, and stars would die too quickly for life to evolve. What's the probability that a non-personal force would cause, for absolute no apparent reason, such a complex universe, where life exists on a hairs breadth? Why didn't the non-personal force create a universe with nothing but horses, or water bottles, or cardboard boxes? Imagine all of the possible universes it could have led to, yet it led to once as complex as ours? It goes beyond stretching credulity to state that such a cause is a plausible explanation of our universe and its beginning.Con argues that a personal cause of the universe explains just as much as a non-personal force. This doesn't make any sense given the evidence. The why is simply god's desire to cause the universe. The how is through his incredible strength (after all, he would have caused all space and time). There are more ways in which a personal cause of the universe explains more that have already been mentioned: the fine-tuning of the universe is more plausible given a personal cause than a non-personal cause, and the beginning of the universe at a certain point rather than another point. It's not all true to say that they explain just as much, given these facts which are unexplained by the non-personal force.Response FourThe coherency of a mind without body follows from the arguments conclusion. If the universe had a cause, and the only plausible cause is a personal being, then it follows that an unembodied mind exists. If you deny a mind-without a brain, then you're eliminating all possible causes of the universe, violating P1. But since P1 is affirmed at this point, you can't deny an unembodied mind.Response FiveThe argument that Con offers in "Conclusion" is completely and utterly disanalagous to the argument I offered for P4. For one, P2 is not even close to being the same as my original P2. Secondly, the argument isn't equivalent because P3 isn't the same as my original P3. In his argument, P3 is obviously false, because there is a perfectly explicable non-vampire explanation of the noise. For example, the wind could have knocked something over and caused the noise. There is no argument that could be offered for his P3, yet I can offer an argument for how little a non-personal force explains, and I've done that in this debate. The idea that this argument is in any similar to mine should be rejected outright.ConclusionWe find ourselves in amazing state of existence. We find ourselves in a world where everything that begins to exist has a cause. Nothing pops into being. Our greatest minds have devised physical theories which show us that our world has not existed forever, but had a beginning. This leads us to the inescapable question: What caused this beginning? What brought this complex and fine-tuned universe, where life is balanced on a hairs breath, into being? The most plausible answer is a mind which brought the universe into being. It explains why this universe would support life. It explains why the universe came into being at all. For if a non-personal force existed, why would it bother to create the universe, and what are the odds that the universe it randomly creates is so fine-tuned for life?I look up into the sky, contemplating the beauty of the universe. How amazing it is that the universe was brought into being!Vale