It is probable that God exists

1. KCACausalityCon is unresponsive to causation at the absolute beginning of everything. His first objection fails to counter the KCA because it offers no legitimate case in which something actually appears out of nothing, or just happens. First, quantum events do not "just [happen]", they occur based on the laws governing quantam mechanics, and moreover his argument fails because it doesn't actually link to the first premise--that is, even if there was no cause of the behavior of particles, they can only engage in behavior because they exist. The cause therefore would be whatever caused these particles to begin in the first place. Con then tries to show that virtual particles come into being without cause. First, even if this is true it fails to answer the KCA because he hasnt linked the appearence of individual particles to the existence of the entire physical universe out of nothing, however there are good reasons to think that this objection is fallacious. In fact Craig calls this argument a "deliberate abuse of science"[1], arguing that "Properly understood 'nothing' does not mean just empty space...nothingness has literally no properties at all...how silly, then, when popularizers say things like 'the universe tunneled into being out of nothing!'"The fluctuations my opponent advocates are not contained in nothingness, but rather a sea of fluctuating energy[2]. The particles come into being not out of nothing but because of causes, so this is no example of creatio ex nihilo. He gains no offense here.Moreover, to assume that ANYTHING can come into being begs the question as the why everything does not come into being without cause. Con offers no explanation for this, so you prefer the worldview I offer that explains why these occurrences dont happen. FOCCon misunderstands the nature of what logic actually is. Logical and mathematical truths are not dependent upon certain aspects of the Universe, but are rather self evident truths. So for example, while there are concievable universes where the gravitiational force is different, there is no concievable universe where 2+2 can equal 7. Thus, the logic inside the Universe does govern that outside of it, because it is the same. Con needs to offer some kind of plausible alternative to logic when it comes to assessing things, otherwise you cant just say "oh well he could be right", he needs to show that its probable that outside the universe logic is irrelevant. Natural causeCon gives you no explicit explanation as to what the natural cause is. He has to show you what it is or else you don't buy it--remember, things cannot bring themselves into being that's logically incoherent. Ignore his Kant evidence because he gives you no reason to think space and time do not exist--continual observations of the effects of time strongly disconfirms it. Nonwithstanding the fact that modern science has essentially proven that the laws of physics governing the Universe are uniform for all observers[3], Con gives you no reason to believe that Kant is correct. Moreover, even if time does not actually exist events do, so the problems posed by infinity still exist. This is non responsive to the actual argument. Cons Hawkings card is irrelevent; how exactly does gravity effect *anything* if there is nothing to effect? This doesn't explain creatio ex nihilo--just because Hawkings asserts that the universe can create itself out of nothing doesnt make it true absent some logical analysis. In order for the universe to bring itself into being, it would've had to already existed.His multiverse theory is unresponsive--first, there is absolutely NO evidence that other universes exist, its called theoretical physics for a reason. Until Con gives you reason to believe that it's more probable than not that other universes exist, he gains no ground here. Current science only allows us to speculate on these possibilies. There's simply no substance behind this argument because even if I coceded it, it doesnt show that the multiverse was without a cause, this objection doesnt counter the philosophical elements of the KCA--so long as infinity is still impossible (not refuted) the multiverse had a beginning, all things beginning have a cause (not refuted) thus you eventually must get to an immaterial and timeless being that brought these into existence-God.If our Universe was just a bubble in the Multiverse (no actual evidence), it's FAR more probable that we would not be observing the massive Universe we have, but rather a much smaller world[4]. Craig explains: "...a fluctuation that formed an orderly region no bigger than our solar system would be enough for us to be alive and be incomprehensibly more likely than a fluctuation that formed the whole orderly universe we see" Induction Con essentially argues here that because we do not observe all events, we cannot know that everything requires a cause. There are two flaws here: 1. We observe enough to know that things do not just come into existence without a cause--thus far, Con has failed to give any example of something that began to exist without a cause. 2. We do have a priori knowledge that everything that began to exist had a cause--its elementary logic. The justifications given for this were enormous and unrefuted, so there's no real problem here. Con has failed to bring about any powerful criticisms against the KCA, it still stands.2. Fine tuning Almost completely dropped. He only makes two response. His first response fails because while it's true that we can only draw conclusions based on the life we observe, he gives no other example of how life could exist in different conditions (although the dearth of life on other planets strongly confirms that the conditions needed for life are extremely specific). For example, it's inconcievable that life could exist without molecules, or in a hydrogen only universe. Con needs to show how life could exist in conditions other than the ones we have now, or else he cant just assert that life could've evolved other ways. He also fails to give an abiotic explanation for life to begin with. His second objection fails. The force of gravity is not like mathematics, the necessary laws of logic and mathematics are compatible with a wide range of values, other universial forces logically could be different than what they are today. Con gives you no reason to think that the way the Universe is is the way it HAS to be--and his multiverse argument certainly goes against that. As such, the fine tuning argument stands--these values are finely calculated to allow for life. Even the expansion at the initial explosion (dropped) was an extremely specific value. His only argument is again the multiverse theory, but he gives no actual evidence for this, and the multiverse theory doesnt actally take out this argument--the mechanisms governing a "multiverse" are so vague and undescribed by Con that it's completely unclear as to whether or not fine tuning would be needed there as well. Prefer the conlcusions drawn from the observable universe.3. Metaphysics Con only responds by saying that the argument doesnt actually prove God--not exactly. It proves a first cause, he gives no other explanation as to what this could be. The only thing capable of creating other existents including matter and energy would be a non-material entity such as an intelligent mind. There is no other explanation, if there is Con has not given any. Thus you affirm right here, this is a clear path to vote pro: I offer an explanation for existents, he doesnt.Con asserts that everything is a logical necessity because something does exist. This is either incoherent or not expanded enough, because there's literally no substance behind this--its completely concievable that the Universe could not exist. Cons objections fails because they dont address the crux of the argument--you can cleanly extend the first cause argument. I urge a pro vote. Sources: http://www.debate.org...