The Cause of the Universe is Plausibly Personal if the KCA is True

I thank Aperion for their reply.Important debating pointWe have to debate within the 8,000 characters per round, other wise I can counter with posting links of my own while not having to use up space in the debate round. I don't think people want a link fest here. As such I ask that people disregard arguments that are NOT contained within the debating rounds.Supernatural timeless personal cause vs Supernatural timeless non personal causePro says..."He argues for a natural cause based upon his apparent ignorance on how such an entity would cause only universes"...&..."but Con's is! For he argues that we don't know what potentialities a natural cause would have, so therefore it's more plausible than a personal cause."Look at what I said last round..."Pro keeps arguing against a natural cause of the universe. Yes I get it Pro, we are debating the cause of the universe ergo by definition "supernatural". I am not suggesting a "natural" cause."Why Pro continues to go down the "natural" cause road I have no idea. Maybe Pro thinks that all supernatural causes must be personal, so by refuting a "natural" cause then this means the supernatural cause must be personal, but the claim that a supernatural cause can ONLY be personal has not being established by Pro.You will recall how I pressed Pro on his claims about what is possible and impossible concerning a supernatural cause that is timeless & non personal. I think it should be clear now that Pro claims here are at his own convenience, as such Pro doesn't get to dismiss out of hand the proposition...6)A supernatural cause that is is non personal, timeless, immaterial just on his say so.Appeal of agent/personal causation in the face of ignoranceYou will recall how I have said...""There is an important logical point here, ignorance about non personal causation does not equal therefore a personal cause. Yes this logical point also extends to questions about the causation in regards to the universe"It should also be noted that when you are ignorant about something it will "lack content", this doesn't justify the lack of logical coherence charge by Pro in regard to a supernatural cause that is not personal. As such all the unanswered questions concerning a non personal supernatural cause of the universe no more justify a supernatural personal cause of the universe anymore than all the unanswered questions of seizures justify a personal cause (demon possession) or all the unanswered questions about earth quakes justify a personal cause (divine punishment).Argument from fine tuning/Life permitting universe & Observer selection effectsPro quotes J.L as saying..."There is only one actual universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants"Correction: There is only one actual universe that we are aware of. It would be a brave and possibly foolish for some one to claim for all time that this is the only universe or the only universe that exists with a certain range of physical constants. I would also add that being surprised isn't a justification for inferring intelligent design. Consider where Pro argues..." In the case of the universe it's the pattern of variables necessary for intelligent life + the improbability that these variables all occur by chance which indicates a personal design."This confuses an immense improbability of something as the same as an independent pattern that infers intelligent design, they are not the same. To establish a pattern that infers intentionality, first you need evidence of the pattern being repeated, a once off isn't enough, where is the evidence of this pattern being repeated ? Then you need background info that allows you to justify that that pattern is happening in such a way that the pattern would not or would probably not have emerge had it not being for intent. We don't have that information and evidence when its comes to universes even life permitting ones, or at least life as we know it.Christopher Hitchens retorts....For most of its lifetime Christianity taught that the earth itself was the center of the universe and we had been given exclusive dominion as a species over it; could not have been more wrong. How are we going to square the new cosmology, the fantastic new discoveries in physics with the old dogmas? Well, one is the idea of this fine tuning about which I've only left myself three and a half minutes. I'll have to refer some of this to later in the discussion. This is essentially another form of pattern seeking on the basis of extremely limited evidence. Most physicists are very uncertain, as they have every right to be, in fact I would say for physicists as they have the duty to be, at the moment, extremely uncertain about the spatio-temporal dimensions of the original episode, the Big Bang at it's sometimes called. We're in the very very early stages of this inquiry we hardly know what we don't know about the origins of the universe. We're viewing it from an unimaginable distance, not just an unimaginable distance in space, perched on a tiny rock on an extremely small suburb of a fairly minor galaxy, trying to look, to discern our origins, but also at a very unbelievable distance in time and we claim the right to say, "Ah, we can see the finger of God in this process." It's an extraordinarily arrogant assumption. It either deserves a Nobel Prize in physics, which it hasn't yet got I notice (I don't know any physicists who believes these assumptions are necessary), or it deserves a charge of hubris" [1]Without the necessary information, there is no "independent pattern" that infers intelligent design and is just another way of trying to infer intelligent design because an outcome is immensely improbable.There is no temporal gap between a timeless cause and it's effect & Unsubstantiated claims about the impossibilities of a timeless non personal causePro asks..."For we still haven't heard why the effect isn't co-eternal with Con's natural cause!"Even if we add the correction of supernatural to replace natural here, that's the best you get from Pro here, he just asks the question and hope no one notices that he himself has not justified HIS claim here, not good enough. As such without the necessity of a timeless cause needing a "will" to produce a time full effect, occams razor enjoins us to not add this unnecessary assumption.At this point my argument here is that in light of my objections and counter-arguments that Pro has not given us a good reason to justify that even if the universe has a cause it is more plausible to be personal than non personal.The brain & mind connectionPro retorts even in light of the evidence it still doesn't rule out the possibility of a mind existing without a brain. Well sure, but it's also possible that mind IS dependent on the brain. To take page out of Pros book, if mind is not dependent on the brain then its inexplicable why we find ourselves constantly where our brains is and we don't find our minds existing without their corresponding brain. This is what we would expect to be the cause if mind was dependent on brain.As such the argument here is that since the mind is probably dependent on the brain the universe was probably not caused by a mind existing without a brain.Intelligent Design ?Pro makes the point that the evidence doesn't logically contradict intelligent design. Well sure, but that's the dirty little secret of intelligent design, you can make it fit with anything, and if worse comes to worse in light of any evidence that suggests the contrary, hey the intelligent designer works in mysterious ways. But the question here is does the evidence I bought up SUGGEST that we are part of some extra cosmic plan ? No.I thank Aperion for the debate.Sources[1] http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com.au...