There is a God.

As Pro, he has the burden of proof to establish the resolution. I simply have to negate the arguments he's presented. However, I'll make it harder for him to do this by presenting arguments against the resolution of my own. Let's begin. Leibnizian Cosmological ArgumentPro's argument is meant to establish a necessary being which caused the universe to come into being. However, the idea of a necessary being is not even coherent. The concept of a necessary being analytically entails its own instantiation (coming into being). By the nature of what it means to exist necessarily, we can determine this a priori. However, according to the English philosopher P. F. Strawson, "Logical or analytical necessity relates solely to the connexion [sic] of concepts with one another. No concept can logically gurantee its own instantiation. .. ." [1] Quentin Smith, professor of philosophy at West Michigan University, expands this point: "Whether a concept is instantiated cannot be known a priori, through an analysis of the concept, but only a posteriori, through examining what lies beyond the concept. ". [2] From this, we can deduce that a concept can analytically entail only another concept, and cannot be relatead in such a way to its own instance. The concept of a necessary being, however, requires that a concept is related to its own instantiation. Therefore, it is incoherent, and Pro's second argument fails. [1] Smith, Quentin P. "Metaphysics of Reason and the Metaphysics of Feeling. " The Felt Meanings of the World: A Metaphysics of Feeling. N. p. : Purdue UP, 1986. 37+. Print. [2] IbidAn Atheistic Explanation of the Existence of the Universe The particle explanation of the beginning of the universe is a hypothesis which states that the first state of the universe was brought into being by simultaneous causation of elementary particles. Simultaneous causation is the idea that "the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous. '[1] X and Y have such a relationship if X, the cause, and Y, the effect, happen at the same instantaneous moment. The possibility of simultaneous causation demonstrates how the universe could have came into being. The earliest instant of the universe was simultaneous causation of elementary particles. For example, a given quark is caused to exist by a given electron, which is caused to exist by a given quark, ad infinitum, at the earliest instant of the universe. This causation is instantaneous, so so all of these cause and effect relations happen at the same moment in time. Elementary particles therefore have an explanation with reference to other elementary particles. Since all physical things are reducible to interactions of elementary particles, an explanation of elementary particles in the first state entails an explanation of everything within the first state. Thus, we have explained the universe's coming into being in terms of elementary particles. This hypothesis makes two primary predictions: instantaneous causation with elementary particles, and the infinity of space. Both of these are confirmed by experiment. In 1972, Stuart J. Freedman and John F. Clauser performed an experiment called 'Experimental Tests of Local Hidden-Variable Theories', published in the Physics Review Letter. They concluded in their abstract that "Our data, in agreement with quantum mechanics, violate these restrictions to high statistical accuracy, thus providing strong evidence against local hidden-variable theories. "[2] Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's inequalities served to put the nail even further into the coffin. His 1981 experiment called 'Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's theorem' concluded that the experiment, 'in excellent agreement with the quantum mechanical predictions, strongly violated the generalized Bell's inequalities'. [3] Aspect's future experiments with Bell's inequalities and special relativity showed that particles can instantaneously affect the states of other particles. His 1986 experiment, "Experiments on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons', published in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, found that "If a photon x is measured to be in a 'spin up' state, this simultaneously causes a spatially distant photon y to be in a 'spin down' state". [4] The philosopher of physics Quentin Smith writes that "Alain Aspect's confirmation of Bell's theorem can plausibly be taken as confirming the existence of simultaneous or instantaneous causation across arbitrarily large spatial distances. " [5] It is therefore the case that particles can instantaneously change the states of other particles. In his 1988 best-seller A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking discusses three models of the universe which are consistent with Big Bang cosmology. In the first model, the universe expands after the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe inevitably slows down and comes to a stop. Then, the galaxies begin receding back into a singularity. In the second model, the universe expands so fast that gravity cannot stop it, but the expansion is slowed somewhat. On the third model, the universe expands after the Big Bang, and continues expanding fast enough to avoid a collapse into a singularity. In the second and third models, writes Hawking, 'space is infinite'. He later writes that 'The present evidence therefore suggests that the universe will probably expand forever. ' This entails that the first model suggested is false. This leaves us with two models, each stating that space is infinite. [6] Inflationary Big Bang cosmology also entails that space is infinite. Alan Guth published an article called "Inflation and Eternal Inflation' in the journal Physics Reports[7]. Bradley Monton, professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Bolder, in his review of this article, states that "inflationary cosmology strongly suggests that the universe is spatially infinite. "[8] Alexander Vilenkin and Jaume Garriga published an article called 'Many worlds in one' in the journal Physics Review, and they conclude in their abstract that "generic prediction of inflation is that the thermalized region we inhabit is spatially infinite. "[9]Because of elementary particles, we have an atheistic explanation of the universe, one which makes predictions that are confirmed by experiment and science. This is sufficient to refute Con's argument from the laws of thermodynamics. [1] Schaffer, Jonathan, Schaffer,. "The Metaphysics of Causation. " Stanford University. Stanford University, 02 Feb. 2003. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. [2] Freedman, Stuart J. , and John F. Clauser. "Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories. " Physics Review Letter (1972): 938-41. [3] Aspect, Alain, Philippe Grangier, and Gérard Roger. "Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem. " Physics Review Letter (1981): 460-63. [4] Aspect, Alain, Philippe Grangier, and Gérard Roger. "Experiments on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons. " Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics In The Light Of New Technology (1997): 105-115[5] Smith, Quentin. "THE REASON THE UNIVERSE EXISTS IS THAT IT CAUSED ITSELF TO EXIST. " Philosophy 74 (1999): 136-46. [6] Hawking, Stephen. "The Expanding Universe. " A Brief History of Time. N. p. : 1988, n. d. 37-54. Print. [7] Guth, Alan H. "Inflation and Eternal Inflation. " Physics Reports (2000): n. pag. [8] Monton, Bradley. "Life Is Evidence for an Infinite Universe. " Philosophy (n. d. ): n. pag. [9] Vilenkin, Alexander, and Jaume Garriga. "Many Worlds in One. " Physics Review (2001): n. pag. Web. Conclusion Pro's first argument fails because it puts forward a concept which is not even coherent. His second argument fails because there is an explanation of the universe from physics that does not require god. He has therefore failed to establish the resolution. Vale