The existence of God

Opening questionYour first paragraph could of just been "I don't identify myself as a strong atheist." I was attacking you because you stated an opinion like it was fact.Accepted evidence Even some of that did happen, would you believe He existed; or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort, or a trick played on you? Cosmological rebuttals Con asks something that was already answered. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him. The Creator does not apply to the laws because He is the one who made them "If infinity can be crossed with God then why not with causation?"Because this violates what causation actually is! Despite this, an eternal universe has been disproven. "...and uses it to reach an inherently illogical conclusion...." This is why the second part of the argument gives the reasons why. Quantum Fluctuations You only touched upon the part about the vacuum. The Wiki article also said"the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy"[1]So no its still not from "nothing". You also didn't answer the spacetime response.If something cannot come from nothing then is God something or nothing? I figured I already answered that in the "Who created god" sectionGod is something yet he never "Came" into existence. He is eternalGod of the gaps Con skips the first objection and attacks the second with straw men.Here is Con's straw man, I stated that" The argument begs the question that it is unscientific to credit God with acting in the universe. If God were to act in the universe, then science would have to acknowledge and even study those acts. The argument that it is unscientific to admit acts of God into science is premised on the philosophical assumption that God either does not exist or does not act in the universe."Con attacks this by stating" Pro states that atheists point to science for explanations but reject religious ones." I never said this. I said that if god were to act science would have to study and acknowledge it. So to say that God is unscientific to to beg the question that God doesn't exist or act."Religion and God however have no evidential foundations and no proof,"Again this is only your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence. "a God explanation has no more empirical validity than a Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny explanation." God is as much of an explanation as explaining the existence of a watch by saying that it was made by a watch maker. Neither is a complete explanation, but they are both starting points. Starting with God moves the origin outside of space-time, and provides a source. Given this starting point, it is possible for science to shed some light on the details. "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" Straw man again"The longer atheists fail to fill these "gaps," the more reasonable it is to believe that those gaps in an atheistic worldview are permanent, because natural creation from nothing did not occur." In other words, I said the longer that these gaps are unfulfilled then the more likely a natural creation did not occur and that the gaps are permanent.Con then postulates on how the universe could of been caused. Such as one big virtual particle. Yet where would the vacuum come from? You can come up with "What ifs" all day long. Yet looking at the evidence presented in both parts of the cosmological argument, it points to a Creator. TAG I get what you're saying. It is not accounting for the laws of logic, but stating how we know them to exist. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.If they were properties of the universe then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths.For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.Con seems to suggest that logic is the result of observationsIf that is the case, then how do you observe the Law of Non-Contradiction which deals with truth statements? Or what about the Law of Excluded Middle which says that statements are either true or false? Statements are the products of minds! Statements aren't observed. How is LNC or LEM observed without presupposing their validity to begin with? Are statements found in the material world? Are logical inferences found in the material world? Are they under rocks, or behind asteroids, or frozen on the polar caps of Mars? Or, are they products of the mind as the original argument claims? Remember. So, we must ask how the truth statements of LNC and LEM are observed in the material world -- without making the fallacy of argument known as Begging the Question (assuming their validity). In my opinion, the criticism of the original argument does not grasp the full scope of the TAG argument. Con seems to suggest that logic is not conceptual by nature Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, it seems proper to say that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things.If you disagree that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature, then please explain what they are if not conceptual realities. If they are not conceptual by nature, thenWhat is their nature?If they are not conceptual by nature, then what are they? If it is not known what they are, then how can it be said what they are not since, it seems fair to say, that knowing what something is not also entails knowing something about what it is?For example, I know what water is. If someone says that a piece of wood is water by nature, I would say that it is not. If someone says that a frying pan is water by nature, I would say it is not. If someone were to say to me that a "flursist" (a word I just made up that represents an unknown thing) is by nature hard, how then can I rationally deny such a claim by saying "I don't know what a flursist is, but I know it isn't hard"? The response would be, "Since you don't know what it is, how do you know what it is not?" Is the response correct or not correct?Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;