Deism vs Atheism

First Cause "However, I pointed out that Pro is only doing this by attacking alternate models. Pro never proved Deism was more reasonable, he just attacked the alternatives without proving his case." I backed my case that Deism is the most reasonable explanation in round 2, when I stated that the universe began to exist, and so the universe was caused. This cause would be the God of Deism. This is the best explanation because it is completely compatible with everything we know about the universe and reality. It's the best explanation because there is reason to believe something existed, as opposed to nothing, before the universe. I can't prove it is 100% true, but it is acceptable enough to be a Deist, as opposed to an Atheist. I'd also like to point out people can be agnostic and Deist, just as I suspect you are an agnostic and Atheist. This is important because it means that neither of us know for certain which is true. We can only lean toward one belief over the other based on evidence and our reasoning abilities. This is what I have been supporting in this Debate. That we should lean toward Deism because it is more reasonable than Atheism. "Pro then tries to respond to my unintelligible argument... shouldn’t believe in Pro’s proposition." I never said I completely agreed with your argument. I said that I agreed with your argument when it came to specific things before time, such as a unicorn, a personal god, energy, space, and matter. The reason I disagree with you when it comes to nothing vs. something was explained later. I will talk about this next paragraph. "Again, disagreeing with the argument without responding to it... a non universe state!" I still think there is confusion on what exactly is nothing. When we say nothing existed before the big bang, that means there were no characteristics/properties/laws/force in this non-universe state. To say that none of these things exist means that there is no way for a universe to start. This "nothing" would not have a characteristic which allows a universe to come out of it. Without this characteristic, then nothing would still exist, as there would be no way for something to come out of it. This means that some type of property existed in this non-universe state that allows for universes to form. Even if there was no matter, energy, and space, the non-universe state would need to have a quality that gave rise to our universe. To say that no quality/property is needed to have a universe come out of nothing is to similar to saying virtual particles can come out of "nothing" in this universe without our own universe's properties. It isn't reasonable. Ex Nihilo "Pro ignores my argument... by stating some laws must exist" This is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Having a lack of a property doesn't give nothing the ability to do anything. It just means that it is truly nothing. In order for a "nothing" to do something, it must have a property that allows it to do something. Having a property actually doesn't necessarily restrict something either. On the contrary, lacking restriction (being able to do anything) would very much be a property of something. This property of being able to do anything could actually be the explanation of where the universe came from. If this "nothing" before the universe had the ability to do anything, and as a result started the universe, then it would be the Deistic God. It would not really be nothing though. "According to Pro, those laws would have broke... of force between magnetic poles." From my source, " Virtual particles are real and have measurable effects, but the same uncertainty principle that allows them to come into existence dictates that they cannot be directly observed." (1) The definition of cause is: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.(2) Since the Heisenburg uncertainty principle allows virtual particles to come into existence, it is a cause of virtual particles. It is a thing that exists in such a way that virtual particles is a result. Because of this, virtual particles don't come from nothing. They come from the universe's characteristics, which allow it to come from no energy and matter. "Even if... the particles are only reliant on nothing to exist.. something did come from nothing." "A vacuum itself isn’t nothing because of these particles, but the particles do indeed come from nothing, uncaused." A perfect vacuum, a place with neither matter nor energy, is not nothing. This place in space is something because it is part of our universe, and thus the properties of the universe act upon this space. Nothing does not exist in any part of this universe, because the universe itself is something. Your quote from Harvard doesn't state that it came from nothing. It can from a place with neither matter nor energy. This is a big difference. And as I stated in the prior paragraph, the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is a cause of these virtual particles' existences. Thus, virtual particles come from something(the universe) and are caused by something(the universe's properties, like the uncertainty principle). Occam's Razor "Saying God could’ve been caused... part of this section." Saying God could have been caused by something else helps my case because there is one less assumption. This makes it a simpler explanation than if I were to claim God has to be uncaused, because there are less variables to defend. "Next, Pro commits the logical fallacy... the universe is uncaused by the last two via the razor." My apologies. I read "why not skip a god and just say the universe is uncaused?" as "why not skip a step and just say the universe always existed?", just as the famous Carl Sagan used to say. But, this still doesn't change my position. Deism is still a simpler explanation than Atheism. You are stating that an uncaused universe is the simplest explanation, yet this would not be reasonable because something doesn't come from nothing. An impersonal creator of the universe is simple because it is compatible with our understanding of our universe and reality. It makes more sense because something is allowed to have existed before the universe, as opposed to only nothing. It is a simple explanation because it doesn't assume anything about this creator outside of being impersonal. It is the simplest explanation that we have for our universe's existence. Conclusion The universe has various explanations for why it exists. Out of all these explanations, I have found that Deism is the most reasonable explanation for our universe's existence, while Con believes an uncaused universe is a more reasonable explanation. He asserts that something can indeed come from nothing. He claims that things even in this universe don't need a cause, so why not the universe itself? I have shown that the universe, if not eternal, demands a cause. Some of the things many see as nothing are actually something. Properties, characteristics, traits and qualities are all different words that make things what they are. The thing that we call our universe has properties that allow virtual particles to be formed out of nothing. The universe itself causes things to happen. Likewise, a non-universe state must have properties that allow universes to form. Nothing is not capable of doing anything, as pro believes. If he believes nothing is unrestricted, then this nothing is actually a thing because it has the property of being capable of doing anything. This "nothing" that he believes the universe could have risen out of would be the creator of the universe, and thus the God of Deism. I thank my opponent for a thought provoking debate. Vote Pro. 1. http://science.jrank.org... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com...