A creator of the universe exists

Infinity? My opponent neither refutes nor denies any of theinfinity incoherence arguments I have put forward. He simply asserts that I amwrong for extrapolating infinity to a number. If he wants to attack me in thisway he has to coherently define infinity without appealing to numbers. Infinityis impossible in the sense that it cannot exist as a number and that was thepoint being made. The universe cannot be eternal because this necessitates the existenceof an infinite number of past events. I showed that an actual infinite number ofpast events are incoherent. I will quote Contradiction: "Kohai argues against Hilbert's Hotel-esqueparadoxes by stating that "finite numbers cannot be expected to behave asinfinite numbers. " But this is a gross misunderstanding of the argument! Such paradoxes do not begin with a finite number and then proceed to reasonthat there is something problematic. Indeed, they stipulate that actualinfinites are possible in reality and then proceed to show that inverseoperations of mathematics cannot apply, as they will lead to contradictions. Assuch, actual infinite cannot exist in reality. This type of argument is knownas a reductio ad absurdum. So far from critiquing the argument, Kohai doesn'teven understand it. .. .quantitative conceptions of infinity. The argumentsagainst the existence of actually infinite sets only show that there cannotexist an actually infinite number of things. That is, the term"infinite" here is understood quantitatively. " I would submitthe same is true for my opponent. The paradox does not reason from somethingthat is not a number to something that is. It uses infinity as a concept andruns with it to its logical conclusion. My opponent says "no no it’s not qualitativenor quantitative it’s a concept", but this begs the question in that aconcept which entails what? A concept which entails an unending amount ofsomething as a number or else it wouldn't be used in Calculus. My opponentshows a gross misunderstanding of infinity as a concept in application, inother words he sees that infinity is not reality but fails to understand whatthe definition of concept he is proposing entails. Furthermore he criticizes mefor claiming an infinite number coins thought experiment, but HE ACCEPTS IT! Myopponent seems to conceded infinity cannot exist quantitative. Premise One of KCA Properly basic beliefs are similar to axioms, theyrequire virtually no proof. Assume my opponent is correct and that any positiveor affirmative belief is reliant on proof, then doesn't everyone have to prove theirown existence. It is a positive claim. The claim that mathematics is true isincredibly hard to prove similarly the proof that my opponent exists or anyoneelse for that matter seems very hard to prove as well. Even Descartes hadtrouble with proving that he himself existed! Positive truth claims are notalways and in all cases the ones requiring the burden of proof. Premise one isa properly basic belief, but I also gave reasons to think it is true (mainlyscience, the thing he places much weight on). Premise one is unscaved. Teleological Argument My opponent talks about "nature" is vague andmisconstrued, all I am saying is for these constants the laws of nature(theuniverse) are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. It istrue that it is just as likely but surely this is irrelevant, because theanalogy is to show the probability between not having life and having life isEXTREMELY DIFFERENT let me explain it this way, while it may be just as likelyto get this universe instead of some other alternative universe it is not onthe other hand equally likely to have another universe that is life supporting,so for example it is .9999999 * 10^37 out of 10^37 to have universe notsupporting life, EXTREMELY LIKELY compared to infinitesimal amount for the lifesupporting one. My opponent’s objection is false and the teleological argumentstands. Explain how the grandeur of universe is explained away by a biologicalnatural mechanism which doesn't relate to natural laws whatsoever. The analogyis not relating human bodies or animals to the design but the design to theuniverse. First Mover Argument: Concession? It seems my opponent in his rush to get an argumentdone has overlooked or not considered (since he responded to it impart viaHilbert's Hotel) the first mover argument. My opponent seems to concede thevalidity if the premise regarding infinite regress is true. He makes a snidecomment regarding so. But other than that he seems to concede the validity ofthe other two premises and the conclusion. I would thank my opponent for thatit makes my job slightly easier. Comprehensive Analysis of the Conclusions of these arguments My opponent really rises one single solitary objectionto my case, the rest are minor and don't really hold any validity. The infinityobjection is not compelling and is a simple misconception about the nature ofinfinity and its place in mathematical operations. We can run a comprehensiveanalysis of the conclusions drawn from these arguments. First the first moverargument which suggests all motion is dependent on a first causer of motion butthat implies that mover is outside the universe because he would have to not bebound to such laws. When we consider the KCA, we know that this cause must bepersonal for how else could a temporal effect from a timeless cause. We knowthat this must be extremely powerful in order to create a universe. From thefine tuning of the universe we can conclude that the creator must have hadrational choice or else why bother and create a universe in the first place? My opponent's case My opponent seems almost to be advocate for Scientism,by which I mean he only affirms science to be true (read the comments if youdoubt such a thing). My opponent seems to commit the fallacy of arguing fromauthority many times over in his case. He never cites specifics but speaks in generalities. My opponent makes various claims without a shred of evidence to support hisclaims for example: "A developed mathematician would truly gawk at theway in which the concept has been abused thus far. ” Do you claim to be adeveloped mathematician making such a judgment call or are you make anassertion with no evidence to back up your claim. "I believe anyone who has taken basic Calculusknows that infinity is an entirely useful and important concept, without whichmuch in mathematics would be lacking" In what way? I am studying and havestudied Calculus. You are giving specifics merely speaking in generalities. "Here I will note the Higgs-Boson particle, atheoretical particle at this point in time but considered "just around thecorner" by some of the top particle physicists. ” Here my opponent speaksof an unconfirmed particle that just being introduced to the scientificcommunity. Furthermore, he never speaks in generalities. How is yourspeculative claim about it damaging the worldview of the theist valuable? Areyou a particle physicist? Or do you have reputable quote from one suggestingthat it is currently damaging will in the future the Christian worldview? Conduct My opponent is condescending and pretentious in hiswhole case despite being shown evidence to the contrary he refuses to acceptthe logic of Hilbert's Hotel or refute it; he simply says thought experimentsare impractical. Truly my opponent places too much weight on empiricalevidence. He simply asserts the dominance of empirical evidence without a shredof evidence to support that. (Read comments) Conclusion My opponent has not defeated my case, my first moverargument is virtually unscaved, my infinity thought experiments are unchallenged,the first premise of the KCA is shown true, therefore the KCA is true, theteleological argument is almost conceded to, and clearly the resolution isaffirmed. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. I urge a Pro vote.