God is not real

Thanks! Rebuttal God by my understanding is omnipotent. (Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not mean that God's Power is limitless?) On The Big Bang Theory My opponent has not addressed one of my key points, The Big Bang theory has two parts, Part 1 (Before Plank Time) The part before is based on the assumption that General Relativity is valid before the Plank Time. If General Relativity holds, then and only then can one say that there was a singularity and a point from which the universe began. This is quite a big assumption as when one actually tests the Einstein Field Equations at the early universe, the curvature scalar (R) and the Ricci curvature Tensor (which describes how much "Curved" the manifold is compared to flat manifolds) tend toward infinity (which you say does not exist). That means that space-time would have to be infinitely curved (such as in a black hole) to a single point (a point which occupies 0 space and where time stops, which is equal to saying that the intervals between two moments become infinitely long). Also General Relativity is not enough before plank time, at such small scales Quantum Mechanics also has to be incorporated into the equations and what happens when you mix General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, you get absurdities that are infinitely worse than when it was only General Relativity at the early universe. Part 2 (After Plank time) General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics part ways from this point (Until we think about Black Holes.) From here the equations start working and we can predict and even see the expansion of the universe. In other words what happened before Plank Time is pure mathematical speculation. Is the Big Bang Theory the only explanation to the origins of the Universe? No. It is the most popular one among people. Concerning The Kalam Cosmological Argument I shall attempt to refute this step by step. Premise 1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause. What exactly is "everything”? To me "everything" means the total aggregate of all that exists. Is God included in "Everything"? Also the word cause is also misleading. As I said everything physical that exists must have a physical cause. As you have said it yourself, no one has seen a tree (a physical object) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. It had to have come from a seed (another physical object). These causes are often called "temporal" causes. There is also (as you say) a non-temporal cause (like God) who you claim created the universe. More of this is explained in my breakdown of premise 2. Premise 2 The Universe began to exist. There is no problem with this premise, but as I again say the defense of this premise (which you have presented) has a fallacy. You claim that infinities do not exist because they bring about contradictions. Try this experiment. Take two rectangular, identical pieces of mirrors. Place then such that they are parallel to each other. Put an object in the middle (say a ball) then look at one mirror and tell me how images of that ball do you see? You have to conclude that the number of objects that would be seen is infinite. Also, William Lane Craig (The creator of The Kalam Cosmological Argument) himself makes a distinction between two types of causality – "temporal" causality, which is the physical causality we observe within the universe, and (obviously) "non-temporal" causality, which is the kind of causality that exists a priori to our universe and caused our universe to come into temporal (physical) existence. But the existence of non-temporal causality is precisely what the Kalam is trying to establish. Thus I conclude that The Kalam Cosmological Argument has fallacies that it 1) Goes against what we have seen in reality (Mainly everything physical that begins to exist must have a physical cause). And 2) The Kalam has to assume the consequent – it has to assume, in the first premise, that non-temporal causality exists – precisely what the argument is supposed to prove. Rebuttals against other matters “Empty space-time (or vacuum) has energy" I wouldn’t consider energy to be “nothing”, would you? I am not saying that energy exists outside space-time. What I am saying is that space-time itself has energy. "there would be no point of creation eliminating the need for a god” If this is your view, then please provide some sort of evidence or argument for thinking that the universe is eternal. I can’t respond to evidence that isn’t provided. You have I believe misunderstood my intention in saying this, the full sentence was: If one were to assume that general relativity does not hold before the plank time, then that would mean that a singularity might not have existed, and there would be no "point" of creation, eliminating the need for a god. If we are to assume that General Relativity is not valid before the Plank Time, then we have no mathematical model for confirming that a singularity did indeed exist. Only after we develop a theory of Quantum Gravity will we know for sure. “the multiverse theory” The multiverse theory doesn’t eliminate the need for a causal beginning. You might say that a previous universe caused our universe, but eventually you would find yourself in an infinite regress of universes. As we have (I hope) established already, infinity cannot exist in reality. So, even if the multiverse theory holds (and you haven’t, by the way, given any reason to think it does) a cause remains necessary. As of this time there is no conclusive proof that a multiverse exists, but again mathematical models do exist where many universes with many dimensions are accounted for. Experiments are being designed to test the multiverse theory but it will take a long time for conclusive proof or disproof. (But you might want to read an article to which I have given a link below.) “to win this debate my opponent must disprove all these theories” Not a single one of the theories you presented conflicts with the two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Each of your theories (which you didn’t provide any evidence for) requires a cause of the universe, and none of them provide any candidates for this cause. So, if anything, these theories serve as evidence in favor of my own position that God exists. These theories do not refute the Kalam and I didn't say they would, they refute the claim that God HAD to have created the universe. Also, evidence is a tricky term. If you are talking about physical or real evidence there is almost none (for some theories), but they do have a logical and mathematical framework which sorry to say the idea of God does not. Again you are using the term cause in a completely different sense as I see it. For me a cause of the universe would have to be physical or natural. You seem to want a supernatural cause (Which I do not believe in) for the universe which I cannot give. On the other side, my opponent has presented (without evidence for thinking they’re true) several theories. The problem is that none of these theories avoid a beginning of space and time. My opponent has attempted to evade this by arguing that energy is “nothing”, but of course energy is physical and as such it is surely “something” and not “nothing” I have not said that energy is nothing, what I have said is that nothing (the scientificVacuum state) itself has energy. For the matter of the beginning of space-time, space-time cannot exist without matter and energy and vice-versa (evidence in the sources). As for the assertion that I have not given any evidence I would like to say, neither has my opponent, he has just given an argument (which has fallacies) and is attempting to morph the evidence of the Big Bang as an evidence for God. Thanks! Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.hawking.org.uk... http://home.web.cern.ch... http://en.wikipedia.org...