Resolved: The Cosmological Argument Fails to Prove God

Before diving into Con's argument, there is one key point that the voters need to keep in mind when reading these arguments. That point is: Con cannot refute my argument without simultaneously refuting God. Given this, his one and only task is to justify the necessity for sentience. Everything else is invital to this debate. Therefore, if Con has not already established the logical necessity for sentience, then he has already lost this debate. -----I'm afraid Con's argument is entirely semantical. He claims God transcends time, but is not eternal. God is extremely powerful, but has no energy. He also adds a bunch of fluff to the list such as "first cause" and "exists necessarily". These are the things we're debating about, so it's pointless to put them in the list until such things are established. For the purposes of this debate, transcending time and being eternal are the same thing. The point is that the clock never runs out. If God is able to perform any sort of motion (even moving through thoughts), then some sort of temporal effect is occurring, even if it's not time as we understand time to be. "Power" and "energy" is also a meaningless distinction. Both mean the same basic thing -- "the ability for things to happen". If there is something outside our universe that transcends the limitations of time and has an infinite capacity for things to happen, then we have established that our universe's existence was a statistical certainty. My argument still holds up with Con's language. He is using semantics because there's not much else he can do. Con scoffs at my challenge to him to show that a mind has causal power but not other abstractions. No, this is a serious point. I've yet to see a mind create matter. As far as science is concerned, mind is limited to the abstract, and so if one form of abstraction can have causal power, why not any other? Con has failed to show why this is the case, and since he cannot make new arguments in the last round he has lost this point. Con argues that it is tautological that there cannot be energy and matter before the cause of our universe because then it wouldn't be a first cause. He's talking about the entire multiverse now, not just our universe, even though he said universe (small "u") before. This brings us back to semantics. Before matter existed (as we understand matter to be) the potential for matter to exist had to be there, and it had to be infinite potential as a God that is not infinitely powerful cannot be a candidate for the title of "the Abrahamic God". Furthermore, this potential must transcend the limitations of time, which allows for infinite opportunity for matter to come to exist in all possible forms. Thus, we once again have met the requirements for our universe to come to exist without the need for intentional creation. MultiverseCon has continued to attack string theory. It seems he still doesn't understand, string theory is not vital to my argument. I've clearly laid out the "string-theory free" version of my argument several times now. My point in bringing up string theory is to show that my conclusion is backed by mathematical proofs. I've never claimed string-theory is true beyond mathematical proofs, but mathematical proofs are nothing to scoff at. If Con is to dismiss string-theory simply because it is a mathematical proof, why accept any mathematical proofs? Con isn't attacking my argument, he's attacking the use of mathematical proofs, and he's doing this for the same reason why he opened with a semantical attack -- he has nothing else going for him. I'm not ignoring his criticism of string-theory, he simply hasn't provided any relevant criticism. He says there are physicists who disagree with it, well that's as much of an appeal to popularity as pointing out that there are physicists who agree with it. Yes, string theory is just a mathematical proof, but that's all I used it for because that's all need it for. The voters can decide for themselves if a mathematical proof is enough for them to agree with its conclusions, but either way it is the case that my argument is consistent with the mathematical proofs modern physicists have come to. Con is trying to make it out that I'm saying "just trust the physicists". This is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you (the voter) trust mathematical proofs, then you can trust these scientists to that extent. If you don't, that's fine. Just focus on my argument then (even if Con doesn't. .. ). Con then says I missed his argument on 2/3/4 dimensional planes. This was extra information on how string-theory posits the same thing I'm arguing for. Con decided to attack string-theory, so I used last round to specify how my argument needn't be backed by string-theory to work. I'd like to elaborate on the hierarchy of dimensions in string-theory, but I'm not here to argue string-theory and I don't have the character space to do so. These are things I said last round as well. The take-home note here is that, in string-theory, each higher dimension can be said to be comprised of an infinite amount of the planes of the dimensions below it, which means if we go 2 dimensions above our own, we have an infinite amount of parallel dimensions each with their own time-line, ergo we have found a space outside our universe which is comprised of infinite time and energy [1]. If this doesn't make sense to you, just focus on my argument. The point is that string-theory provides a mathematical argument for the same conclusion I'm arguing for. InfinityCon claims that, given an infinite multiverse, there would be an infinite amount of copies of ourselves. This is true, but I don't see the problem. Con is talking about a logical issue with having an infinite number of rooms, putting an infinite number of me in even rooms and an infinite number of him in the odd rooms. This is the exact problem the video I linked deals with. I highly suggest checking the video out to better understand what I'm saying. It's all about your ability to draw lines connecting certain integers to others. As it turns out, this isn't a logical problem at all, just a perceived problem due to the unintuitive nature of infinity. Con goes on to criticise the "real-world" application of the video's I linked to last round. I don't know how Con doesn't see how the sheep-example applies to his scenario. It's the same issue -- fitting one (or more) infinity into another. Either this is going over Con's head, or he's bluffing his rebuttal. ConclusionThe bulk of Con's arguments throughout this debate have been an attack on modern theoretical physics and mathematical proofs, NOT my argument. His only rebuttal to my actual argument has been entirely based on semantics. I'm suspicious that a great deal of the concepts at play here went above Con's head since his argument has basically been "I don't get it, therefore it's wrong". Now, I don't mean that as an insult, but the only other option is that Con could not think up a real counter-argument to my original argument, and so he intentionally shifted the focus of his rebuttals onto bashing the use of mathematical proofs in order to cover this up. Either way, this means Con loses. As of this round, it still stands that God must be self-aware, outside the constraints of time (eternal), and have the infinite capacity for creation. It also stands that all we need to make our universe a statistical certainty is for the outside of our universe to be outside the constraints of time and have the infinite capacity for creation (one could say "free-floating power" if the word "energy" doesn't sit well with you). Therefore, since my opponent has made no compelling case for why sentience is necessary and since he is unable to make new arguments in the last round, he has lost this debate. The resolution is, both once again and finally, affirmed. Thank you for your time. VOTE PRO1. . http://www.wisegeek.org...;