The existence of God

I'm going to try and address all of Pro's arguments but if I miss one I'll get it next round.Opening QuestionI don't really know why we're wasting character space on this. You are right, the lack of evidence for God only makes him EXTREMELY unlikely, similar to the tooth fairy, however it is technically possible he exists, it's just not a logical conclusion to jump to. If you want to attack me for not being a 100% sure of God's non-existence then I hope you'll be willing to disprove the tooth fairy/Santa for me next post.You ask what evidence would be acceptable... Hmmm, maybe the rapture happening. Jesus returning, performing miracles, going on Letterman, etc. Clear violations of the laws of physics to which there are no other explanation would certainly persuade me.CosmologicalPro shrugs off eternity as "not time as we know it," making a case for the eternity of God. But then soon afterwards he states that an eternal regression of caused events cannot happen. Does anyone else see the huge logical flaw here? Why is it that this being can live literally for ever and it can not only be possible but the only answer... Yet eternal caused events which is just as difficult to conceive, cannot happen.Pro then points to the big bang and the lack of knowledge about what caused it. He is unintentionally proving what I said in my previous post, science is humble and waits for research to prove an answer, while religion leaps upon these gaps and shoehorns in an automatic God answer, without a shred of evidence.Pro then presents a statement which contains its own refutation, making my job wonderfully easy. He asserts that you cannot have an infinite regression of causes, lest infinity be crossed, then he presents his own answer of an infinite God who would by definition be crossing infinity. The logical double standard here really is staggering. If infinity can be crossed with God then why not with causation? This is an especially deceptive argument because it uses the guise of a logical premise (everything must have a cause), and uses it to reach an inherently illogical conclusion (a supernatural, eternal, timeless and completely devoid of any matter.) This kind of being has no precedent on earth, there is nothing like it and no reason to conclude it as a reasonable hypothesis without a shred of evidence. Quantum Fluctuations Pro has cherry-picked from the Wikipedia article. The full paragraph was: “According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is 'by no means a simple empty space,' and again: 'it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.' According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.” This actually strengthens my case, in other words space is a vacuum consisting of nothing, except for the quantum fluctuations and virtual particles which I have described. This is reiterated in the NY times article “the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain 'fluctuations.'” (1) But the origin of these fluctuations is still unfounded and as the New Scientist describes, the virtual particles are “randomly popping into existence and disappearing again.” (3) Pro never responded to my question of whether God is something. If something cannot come from nothing then is God something or nothing? If he does not respond to this then the point goes to Con. God of the Gaps Pro states that atheists point to science for explanations but reject religious ones. Now this is a very silly thing to say, science is a peer-assessed process in which a hypothesis is set upon and then scientists work to disprove it. Scientific conclusions are based on empirical evidence meticulously gathered over hundreds of years. Religion and God however have no evidential foundations and no proof, a God explanation has no more empirical validity than a Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny explanation. Once again Pro states that it is unscientific to acknowledge acts of God, my response is that it is unscientific to credit unsubstantiated claims based on a lack of any proof. Science treats Homeopathy, for example, very sceptically and largely see it as quackery, this is due to a lack of proof for its claimed methods of action. Pro then states that some gaps in science have been there for too long and are permanent, he then states that natural creation did not happen. First of all I'd like to point out that it's not even 140 years since Thomas Edison tested the first light bulb successfully, science is still in its absolute infancy and has reached a phenomenal level for the short time it's had. To say anything but, is just plain unfair. I actually think that natural creation will be recreated in a lab any day now, as Professor Andrew Knoll said life is just chemistry and “The recipe for life is not that complicated.” (4) Finally, in response to Pro's “its either an eternal universe or creator and the eternal universe has been falsified” I have found another entirely plausible and much more convincing use of the Cosmological Argument which uses science we know exists and requires no supernatural element...The Cosmological argument has absolutely nothing to do with God. All it refers to is an uncaused cause. It could just as easily be an argument for a giant quantum fluctuation which began the universe. In fact this is a much more likely scenario as we not only know that quantum fluctuations exist, but there is some scientific support for the hypothesis. Physicist Heinz Pagels said "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." (2) Suddenly a theistic God is no longer the only 'logical' conclusion and is rendered entirely unnecessary. TAG I'm afraid to say you've completely misunderstood my argument, I'll try and be clearer this time. You are claiming a necessary fact which is derived from the facts of existence as proof for God. You describe these laws as not physical, however that is exactly how they are because they refer to the nature of physical matter. The matter which constitutes a pencil for example is not also the matter which makes up a pen, therefore a pencil is not a pen at the same time (you describe this as the law of identity.) The fact that matter is consistent in its own identity is no more of a 'law' than the fact that matter makes up atoms, and that these atoms make up objects. All you are doing is rhetorically describing an inherent fact of existence as a law, but your rhetorical description is not equal to the fact which it describes. Your rhetorical description is not what is universal and non-contingent but the necessary truth which it describes, is. This may seem trivial but this equivocation and lack of distinction is exactly what allows you to go from laws of logic to an absolute mind. See, you describe the TAG laws as conceptual by nature, they are thoughts, mental constructs of the absolute mind of God, which allow for their absolute nature. However, what is mental, conceptual and thought are simply descriptions of these truths, not the truths themselves. I point you to my triangle analogy last post. Sources: (1) http://www.nytimes.com... (2) http://www.infidels.org... (3) http://www.newscientist.com... (4) http://www.pbs.org...