Resolved: The Cosmological Argument Fails to Prove God

God Pro wants it so that if you remove all the unproven properties in my argument, you get his cause. Unfortunately, if pro had successfully disproved all points he argued against in my case, you'd only get some cause. You wouldn't get the multiverse; just a cause. That's why pro has to make an argument for the multiverse. Once you refute my case, you're not left with the multiverse, only the fact that it was caused. I'm not sure pro understands my reasoning. Every single property was argued for. God has not existed for an infinite amount of time because that's impossible as shown. He must transcend time then. We don't know what it's like to transcend time, but it's a reasonable thing to posit. The dimension of time need not to exist for an immaterial being. To explain it to pro, God is powerful without energy because energy is a material thing. At best you could say God has a non-material type energy, but that's just confusing. Since God is immaterial, he is not made up of energy, and definitely not an infinite amount of energy. He exists necessarily because if he were contingent, he'd need an external cause. But since he's the first cause, he can't have an external cause, thus can't be contingent, thus must be necessary. It's an amazingly simple argument but pro fails to understand it. And the reason why he must be the uncaused first cause is even more obvious given my argument against infinity and thus the need for a first cause which is itself not caused. Pro says that since God is able to perform motion, such as thinking, then some temporal effect is happening. Why can we say there's a completely different type of time but there can't be no time? For all purposes, a different type of time could do for God as long as it escapes the infinite regress, which pro's multiverse does not by the way. However, in order to escape the problems of infinity, I don't think we could say it's still time. It would be something completely different. Time is a dimension that must have had a beginning. Pro sneaks in a last round argument which states that for my argument to fit the Abrahamic God, he must be infinitely powerful thus of infinite potential. Well, for one, this does not in any way entail infinite time and energy, two, the Abrahamic God is omnipotent, not infinitely powerful. Omnipotence is maximally powerful. That's a limited power, not an infinite one. [1] If you look at pro's actual argument, he never actually asked how minds can create matter and energy. All he asked was that if a mind can, why not abstractions? However, as I stated, there's no conceivable reason to believe a mind cannot cause things. That much is obvious. From there you just have to say a mind could create energy and matter only if it's extremely powerful which is part of the argument. The semantics over "universe" is irrelevant. The major importance is that if any matter or energy predated the universe, it had a beginning. And no matter what you use, my same arguments apply that lead to God as the uncaused first cause. It's not even an argument. Multiverse Pro keeps telling me String theory is not vital to his case. Yes I understand that, but even if it's not vital, it is part of it and if I were to ignore String theory, I'd be admitting the multiverse exists, which I don't. I'm sure he'd love it if I ignored a point which refuted my case, but that's not going to happen. Pro strawmans me. Mathematical proof is perfectly valid. But unfortunately String theory does not have mathematical proof. It has mathematical coherency and explanatory powers. That is far from proof. I already stated in my original case that, "I am not in any way rejecting mathematical proofs. But the mathematical support for String theory is not in any way a proof. " The contention is that String theory is only a mathematical model that explains certain parts of reality but has not been tested once and certainly not mathematically proven. Its equations work out but no physicist in the world would take that as proof. My citing physicists who disagree with String theory was only in response to his incredible appeal to popularity himself. In addition to pointing out his fallacy, I wanted to also point out that String theory did not have as much consensus as pro posits. Extremely credible physicists disagree with it. What pro was saying was he does not have to argue for string theory because it's the leading theory in modern physics and if the voters trust physicists to know what they're doing they should trust the theory. Oh, just if you trust the physicists. Well who on earth reading this debate doesn't trust physicists to know what they're doing? This is an absurd 'argument'. No one would say the physicists don't know what they're doing so he is making a massive appeal to popularity. It's just that String theory has no consensus nor proof. Pro says voters can accept a mathematical proof if it's good enough for them. What proof! ? Pro cannot merely say there's a mathematical proof. It's a very wild claim to say String theory can be proven mathematically. I'd think he'd need some support for that assertion. Yes String theory is mathematically comprehensible, but it's an extreme jump to say it's mathematically proven which no credible String theorist would believe. Pro's continued to fail to justify his denial of a spatial dimension boundary. All he's done is rehashed his initial statements. I needn't make the same response. I already questioned why he assumes this is the case. Since he's so fixed on not making an argument for string theory, there's no reason to accept any of his claims. Infinity Pro completely ignores my biggest objection which is that we can still take infinities of the same value for use in the analogy. Let the value of the infinite copies of pro be equal to x. As long as we search through the infinite multiverse we're statistically certain to find 2 other infinities with a value of x. Pro's escape of the problems was that infinities can have different values. But even if infinities can have different values, we could still make a hypothetical scenario where all infinities in the scenario are of the same value. Pro’s argument presents no challenge. Mathematical tricks are not always demonstrative in reality. You can mathematically get infinities of different values, but you can't show how the trick applies to real life. What's important is whether you can quantify all copies of pro as the numbers between 1 and 2 and copies of me as the infinite amount of integers. This seems absurd. How are you supposed to say the value of copies of pro is equal to the value of all numbers between 1 and 2 and the value of copies of me is equal to the value of all integers? I'm asking pro how he quantifies this. How is it applicable to real life? It makes no sense except as a mathematical trick. Pro assumes just because you can do it mathematically, the same thing works out in reality. Conclusion Pro presented 2 reasons for believing in the multiverse. I largely discredited String theory and pro barely put up a fight. His other (main) argument was an absurd strawman built around the proposition that if I refuted the multiverse I was refuting God since the multiverse possessed essential properties of God. As I showed, there's much more to this and God is both not infinite in energy and not infinite in time. For the infinity contention, I had two counters but the main one went like this. Me: Infinities existing in reality presents absurd paradoxes thus invalidating the multiverse. Pro: Oh, well there can be different values of infinity so no problem. Me: Okay, if so we can still find infinities in the multiverse which have the exact same value and apply them to the analogy. Pro: [No response] [1] . http://goo.gl...