God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe

"CON: The extended Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed and I have shown why in the previous round..." The first premise is equal in both the extended and the original, making my argument against the first premise equally valid. "The Kalam's first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." This is true, but with very specific exception, it is possibly untrue..." You say that the virtual particles can exist without cause, then say that the space they happen in cannot. This is special pleading. "Quantum mechanics is generally not very well understood...." If you would have read the Primary State Diffusion paper I linked to you you would see that it says that if Primary State Diffusion is correct that all other quantum fluctuations are a result of spacetime fluctuating. "Richard Feynman, a pioneer in discovering mechanisms of quantum mechanics..." Is there a purpose to this quote? "CON:"Spacetime itself fluctuates on the quantum level [and addressed why space can be created for quantum fluctuations]"..." Your "..." between "quantum states" and "primary state diffusion" leaves out a lot of important information. If you read the paper you will see that Nondifferentiable fluctuations=/=primary state diffusion. Section 3 and 4 of the paper deal with the actual part I was bringing up, spacetime fluctuating in and out of existence on a quantum level. "PSD operates in space-time not outside of it." This shows that you did not even fully read the paper, it is a theory about spacetime. It does not operate in spacetime, nondifferentiable fluctuations (Example is the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation) do. I recommend you read the full paper before addressing the theory. "CON: "some morals are objective"..." You did not give any logical, empirical, or collectively intuitive evidence. You only brought up rape and murder, without any sources to back up your claims, and I showed them to be false. "Given Occam's razor, the simplest theory that fits the evidence should be accepted..." What evidence exists that best fits morals being objective? "CON: "Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here."..." They do relate to each other, but are not the same thing. Laws are made based off of the ethics and knowledge of a society. Ethics are the commonly agreed upon morals of a society. Morals are subjective values of an individual. "CON: What about murderers and rapists? Are you saying that every single one of them finds murder immoral? That they all find rape immoral?.." Did I ever say all of them find it moral/immoral? I only said some. "CON: "[Psychopaths] are the people who know exactly what they are doing and want to inflict as much damage as possible. With no remorse, they are free to do as they please"..." Based off of the psychology and neurology mentioned in my source they almost certainly do not find it immoral to kill. You still have not provided a source to say they do. "CON: Only 55.2% of the people [that raped who were] interviewed said they felt guilt...." How does it damage my case? As you brought up, and as psychology does show, people can act against their own sense of morality. The fact that that can happen does not damage the fact that 44.8% did not feel guilty. It does nothing to damage the fact that the majority of the rapes were out of a sense of having the right to do it. You still have not brought up a single source to show your side of the arguments. "CON: this really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective....." Why not? People can act against their morality, that is a fact, but that does not mean everyone shares the same morality on certain points. The majority you mention is not that much of a majority, and it does not need to be. As long as there exists one person that does not find rape or murder to be immoral it is a case against your objective morality argument. "Your conclusion rests on the impossibility of someone to disregard objective evidence...." Never denied that this is possible, however there is also the (supported) possibility that people do not find those acts immoral. "The question is whether our understanding of morality better fits an objective or subjective view of morality...." There is something that you have not done yet, you have not applied Occam"s Razor in a debate format to even attempt to show the support you say it gives. You also have failed to provide a single source to argue for your objective morality. "CON: There is no evidence of the first premise. "(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information."..." Here you assume there are instructions, information specifying atomic structure and behavioral patterns. Where is your evidence that any of these instructions exist? You might say that without the instructions that the atomic structure and behavioral patterns would not be constant, but there is nothing to support this. "Given that intelligence, defined as specified-complex information, has only shown to come from prior intelligence," So, are you saying that DNA (which I believe falls under your argument) would have to come from prior intelligence? I would recommend reading this debate then: http://www.debate.org... You have no supporting evidence for your first premise, only an assertion that it is true. Actually, you have no supporting evidence for any of the premises in this argument. "then intelligence is required for this specified-complex information. If specified-complex information only results from intelligence, then the intelligence nature exhibits requires an intelligent causal agent." You see, you recognize that nature exhibits "intelligence", but jump to the conclusion that it must come from an intelligent causal agent without providing evidence to support that jump. "CON: (2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity." Which means that said agent would have to have "specified complex information", making it go on ad infinitum. There is also no evidence to say this is true...." That is A. special pleading for a God, and B. violating the deductive argument I made in my first round of debates that you never made a rebuttal for. "CON: People sometimes don't treat human beings with value. Therefore not all humans are intrinsically valuable. You did not support your previous (#) arguments with evidence...." And objective morality is shown to be false. Also, you ask for a "necessary" criteria to value a human being, but the existence of a NECESSARY criteria would make it no longer an extrinsic value. People can value others for any number of subjective reasons based on their own subjective morality. "Logic is evidence. Do you disagree? I could point to any sourcelss claim that you've made..." You want me to source the definition of every single word that I use? I am bringing up the fact that you did not source your important claims because of the simple fact that you can make any baseless claim you want. I can say that Professor Teneth proved God does not exist without providing sources, so does that make it a good argument? Sources help validate arguments in order to allow the other side to properly critique the arguments. "A: We know that one universe exists and there is no physical evidence that more than one exists." Should I repost the evidence for the multiverse? http://www.dailymail.co.uk... You never attempted to refute this point. "B: We evidence of intelligence in our universe because nature mirrors the specified-complexity of our own intelligence" A claim that was made without evidence. "A: We do not have a sound naturalistic explanation of how the universe could have begun." Except that one example is the explanation I initially posted. "B: We know that something must exist eternally..." Which is special pleading, unsupported by evidence, and disregards the deductive argument I initially made in my arguments. "Occam"s Razor supports the one with the least assumptions, which is B, or an intelligent design explanation of the universe." Except that there are MANY assumptions for B and very few for A, so a naturalistic explanation is supported by Occam"s Razor. "This uses laws and phenomena that already exist that were created in the instance of the big bang. Something cannot have a causal effect if it doesn't yet exist." And again, no evidence to support that they were created in the instance of the big bang. My opponent has used minimal sources to back up his claims and had minimal evidence for his arguments. He has also some logical fallacies (example being the special pleading logical fallacy) and has ignored some of my arguments. He also said he would "paraphrase some of my arguments while staying true to my logic to preserve char. space." but then misrepresented me on quite a few of the paraphrases.