Resolved: The Cosmological Argument Fails to Prove God

Con has failed to understand my argument and so his counter argument misses the mark entirely. To clarify, string-theory is not the key to my argument, so arguing that modern theoretical physics is only theoretical and should therefore be dismissed is a moot point even if it were a reasonable counter-argument. I also do not have to argue for string-theory. It is the leading theory in modern physics as a contender for the Theory of Everything [5] and the voters should accept this theory to the extent they trust that these physicists know what they're doing. I'm not here to lay out any field-theory, my argument is that the CA only justifies a belief in an infinite amount of time and energy, not God. Consider this chart:God -Not limited to the constraints of time as we understand time to be-Infinite energy-Self-awareMultiverse -Not limited to the constraints of time as we understand time to be-Infinite energy As we can see, the argument I'm putting forth only excludes sentience from the equation. The if the CA successfully argues for God, then it also successfully argues that there exists something outside our universe which is comprised of an infinite amount of time and energy. Therefore, if the CA only justifies a believe that there is something outside our own universe which spans an infinite amount of time and energy and fails to justify sentience, then at best this argument justifies my argument and at worst is completely invalid. Either way, Con will lose. Once again, the CA goes as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. (Therefore) the universe had a cause. That cause is God This argument provides a strong argument that our universe had a cause, but as I showed in R2, all you need is an infinite amount of time and energy for there to be the statistical certainty of our universe forming un-guided. Since God requires these things PLUS sentience, "God" requires greater justification, but since none is given in the CA, we must conclude that the CA does not provide a compelling argument for God. If the CA is valid, then it argues for my argument, not God. If the CA argument is invalid, then it fails to argue for God anyway. Either way, Con can't win. Let's look at some of the things Con said specifically. Multiverse Con claims that string-theory does not argue for a multiverse. This is bizarre. A multiverse is defined as a set of multiple-universes, which is exactly what string-theory argues for. The wiki-page for "Multiverse" has a section devoted entirely to the string (M) theory version of a multiverse [1]. In fact, on that very same page, there is a list for the 9 (count them, NINE) different types of multiverse Brian Greene (a theoretical physcist) has discussed [2]. Why would a string-theorist create a list of 9 different types of multiverses if they were comlpletely irrelevant to string theory? One of them is even clearly labelled "brane multiverse";"The brane multiverse follows from M-theory and states that each universe is a 3-dimensional brane that exists with many others. Particles are bound to their respective branes except for gravity. "Infinity"Pro presumes energy & time are both infinite. "Wrong. The CA presumes these things. Think about this; if there is nothing outside our universe which is eternal and comprised of an infinite amount energy, then we have also excluded God. Con cannot argue against the existence of an infinite amount of time and energy without defeating his own position. He must argue FOR God's sentience (within the constraints of the CA), not against "infinity" and "omnipotence". Con goes on to mention a logical contradiction one can come to with infinity. The problem Con is talking about can be solved by understanding the concept of different cardinalities of infinity. In other words, some infinities are bigger than other infinities [3] [4]. In this way, you can have an infinite amount of multiple things without logical contradiction. Even if this seems confusing, you can at least trust that the worlds leading physicists and mathematicians have considered these issues before and worked them out. Con will not be single-handedly debunking string-theory in this debate, nor would it matter if he could as my argument doesn't actually need string-theory. GodCon states that we require an uncaused cause. This is true, but all the uncaused cause requires is eternity and infinite energy. Sentience is not a requirement as eternity and infinite energy are all that is required to statistically guarantee all possible outcomes, including the natural formation of our universe. Con then states that the universe must have been created by a mind since only abstractions and mind are immaterial. Finally, we come to an argument that attempts to justify sentience. His argument goes as follows:1. The universe is the begining of all matter and energy2. Only abstractions and mind can pre-date matter and energy, since they are neither3. Abstractions cannot create the universe4. Therefore, a mind must have made our universe. Firtly, this argument assumes abstractions cannot create matter and energy. If a mind can create matter and energy, why not abstractions? At best, Con can say that abstractions can't will things, and therefore it is incredibly unlikely for abstractions to result in matter and energy. However, we must take into account an infinite amount of time (which must be the case if something is time-less), which would guaruntee that very thing would occur. Secondly, Con cannot simply assert that there was no matter or energy before our universe. If it's possible for abstractions and mind to pre-date our particular universe, then why not matter and energy? Con needs to justify this. Furthermore, abstractions and mind are expressions of energy. Therefore, since energy pre-dates our universe, and whatever pre-dates our universe must also be timeless (or eternal, if you will), we once again have established all the necessary requirements to guartuntee our universe's existence without the need for intention. In short, when you remove all the unwarranted assumptions in Con's argument, you end up with my argument. ConclusionThe bulk of Con's rebuttal is an attack on string-theory, not on my argument. An attack, by the way, that fails to discredit string-theory. I want to make it clear that I did not bring up string-theory to be the corner-stone of my argument, but to show that theoretical physics is arriving at the same conclusions with math that I am with philosophy. That is, the existence of something outside our universe which is comprised of an infinite amount of time and energy. Funny enough, this is exactly what the CA also argues for, except theologians try to sneak "sentience" into the conclusion. As I've shown, "sentience" is an unwarranted assumption. The probability of our universe's existence is already infinite with eternity and infinite energy alone, and so "sentience" requires further justification than Con has currently given. Con will have to argue that the CA successfully establishes the necessity for sentience if he wishes to win this debate. As he has yet to do so, the CA does not stand as a compelling argument for God. The resolution is affirmed. VOTE PRO. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.youtube.com... [video]4. . http://www.youtube.com... [video]5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;