Deism vs Atheism

I'm not sure how Pro is defining God. Do you mean anything at all that created the universe is God or that a non personal sentient mind that created the universe is God? If the former is true, then this is more like pantheism than deism. If it's the former, I'd also feel as if I didn't get all the information before accepting. I will withhold an argument until this is cleared up. First Cause I feel that the biggest problem is that Pro never showed that a God caused the universe or that the universe needs a cause. He just attacked alternatives, but this doesn't mean his case is justified. To conclude a God exists because there's no other explanation is to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy. If one couldn't point to any other explanation other than God, this doesn't mean such a proposition is true. A problem with Pro's argument is the simple fact that we don't know what was before. Say, there's a dimension behind a door and in this dimension there could be anything. Attributes, which we can't conceive. Things that are not possible in this world. Is it really rational to determine what's in it? Especially if it has no observational consequences on this world. This is what was before the big bang. Before has no observational consequences; otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. It is like this dimension. We can try to speculate what was before by observing this universe, however we simply don't know if that's valid. If someone claims a unicorn exists in this dimension, we should lack belief in such a claim until it's proved. Same with before the universe. A unicorn, a god, nothing, could have existed before. We don't know if a casual principle existed before, we simply have to lack belief in such things until proved otherwise. The Multiverse, Eternal universe, and much of Ex Nihlo sections, I will not dispute. Ex Nihilo First, I want to say we cannot reject creation from nothing -no thing, no laws, no virtual particles- just on face value. We've never observed nothing to see what it does. Nothing would mean no laws, including any type of law restricting it from becoming something. I don't want to be misunderstood here, I'm not saying this is how it happened, but I'm saying it's still an undisputed possibly. Pro said all laws are broken at the Big Bang. I feel he's killing his own case here, because then the universe could indeed be uncaused. Since such laws don’t exist. I wouldn't say a vacuum itself is nothing, but even if the virtual particles obey laws, they do show us some things can be uncaused. Sure, the particles obey the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean they were caused. If a lion appeared from nothing, when it is in existence it has to correspond to the laws of physics. This doesn’t mean something caused the lion. Leading down this, brings me to my next point. Occam's Razor When the question of God comes up, one has to appeal to it being uncaused to prevent a regress. However, why not skip a god and just say the universe is uncaused? Occams razor suggests we take the latter. Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . . "If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along" "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." "If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest." "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." . . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . . "Keep things simple!" [1] Let's apply it. Cutting an uncaused god out and stopping at an uncaused universe is simpler, shorter, and makes one less assumption than its opposing hypotheses. A God hypothesis says there’s an uncaused God that caused the universe, stopping at the universe is clearly simpler. By the unintelligibly of before the universe and Occam's razor, we should be left with atheism. With the possibly of Ex Nihlo creation, we have no reason to accept a god. Pro's argument is effectively refuted. I have another argument, but I need Pro to clear up what creator means. Hopefully he'll do that. Sources [1] http://math.ucr.edu...