God is not real

Thanks, Pro The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentP1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause. “What exactly is "everything”?” If the difficulty is with the word “everything”, then “anything” can be substituted. The point here is that everything (or anything) that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. “As I said everything physical that exists must have a physical cause.” If this were true, then we would run into an infinite regress of physical causes. As infinity does not exist in reality, we can conclude that there must have been a first cause. We can also conclude that this first cause must have itself been uncaused. This uncaused cause (God) cannot be physical because this would be the equivalent of a child giving birth to itself. A physical cause cannot bring “physicalness” into existence, because if it did then it would have to have been nonphysical, which is a contradiction. Thus, the first cause that brought about the physical universe must have been immaterial. “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?” It seems here that my opponent is using potential infinities and actual infinities synonymously. These terms are different, however, as “actual infinities” are not thought to exist in reality (infinity does not actually exist in a quantifiable way, but only in a potential sense, as in an idea). To better understand the difference between a potential infinite (which doesn’t actually exist, it is merely an idea) and an actual infinite (which is contradictory and as such does not exist in reality), please take a look at what Aristotle had to say on the subject: http://sites.middlebury.edu... “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). 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.” (1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not “go against” what we see in reality. Rather, it is endorsed by what we know about reality. We know, in reality, that a child cannot give birth to itself. In the very same way, the physical world cannot have been created by something physical. (2) I’m not concerned with temporal vs non-temporal causality; the point is that there must have been an uncaused cause of the universe and that God is the best (and only) viable candidate for this first cause. “I am not saying that energy exists outside space-time. What I am saying is that space-time itself has energy.” Then we’re agreed that energy is not “nothing”, as my opponent originally stated. “These theories do not refute the Kalam” My opponent has conceded that each of the theories he has proposed, even if true, do not succeed in refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument. “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.” It seems as if my opponent is arguing that the physical universe must have a physical cause because he does not want there to be a supernatural cause. As I’ve stated several times throughout this debate, the origin of physical matter cannot itself have been physical, as this would be contradictory in the same way that a child giving birth to itself is contradictory. “what I have said is that nothing (the scientificVacuum state) itself has energy” I thought we were agreed that energy wasn’t “nothing”. The vacuum state cannot be considered “nothing” as nothing is by definition the absence of something, and energy certainly is “something”. Rebuttal to my Opponent’s Arguments “God by my understanding is omnipotent. (Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not mean that God's Power is limitless?)” An omnipotent entity is an entity which has the power to do anything that is logically possible. So, yes, God’s power is “limitless”, because the inability to actualize an incoherence (i.e. nothing) doesn’t seem to me to be a limit in any sense. “My opponent has not addressed one of my key points, The Big Bang theory has two parts, Part 1 (Before Plank Time) and Part 2 (After Plank time)” In fact, I have addressed both of these points. Neither “before plank time” nor “after plank time” avoid a necessary beginning of our universe. Summary At the beginning of this debate, I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument. My opponent has failed to refute this argument. He has agreed with both premises of the argument, with his only disagreement coming from the idea that a material universe could not have had a material cause. To emphasize this point, I invite my opponent and any readers to consider the absurdity of a child giving birth to itself. This is just as incoherent as the idea of having a physical entity as a cause of physical matter itself. So, it seems to me that the Kalam Cosmological Argument has held sound and that the necessary conclusion (God exists) follows logically and inescapably. In addition to this, my opponent has conceded that none of the theories he discussed could refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Moreover, my opponent has failed to fulfill his share of the burden of proof in the lack of arguments and evidence he has brought forward in favor of his own position. I think we can reasonably conclude, then, that I have fulfilled my share of the burden of proof whereas my opponent has not. I urge readers to Vote Con! Thank you. Sources http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://sites.middlebury.edu...http://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...