It is probable that God exists

Thanks thett for the great debate. I hope all voters vote fairly & try to leave their bias behind. KCA Causality Pro wants you to believe that just because I can't show something from nothing uncaused, means I haven't refuted premise 1. We can't observe matter beginning to exist but we can know that events can occur without a cause. In our universe they may be small but I have already shown how quantum fluctuations could plausibly explain the beginning of the universe. Also uncaused events in our universe are a certain way simply because that is the nature of our universe. But the nature of our universe does not necessarily apply to outside of the universe. Seeing as caused events are way more common than non-caused in this universe, uncaused events are somewhat restrained. However, outside the universe, nature may not be so constraining of non-causality. I did respond, despite what pro says, to his point that uncaused events can only occur according to the laws of quantum mechanics. I fully accept that certain conditions are necessary for uncaused occurrences but that could be used to refute pros own argument. The existence of logic is a necessary precondition to pros reasoning that God was uncaused. Are we then to say he was not caused? Everything has preconditions. Pro is again misusing the term nothing. There are two types of nothing. A literal nothing or a scientific meaning of nothing. Scientifically, the nothing before the universe was not literally nothing. Even pro cannot argue the beginning of the universe began from nothing since the nothing would have had to have the potential to be the universe & potential is something. Potential is a property so it's not literal nothingness. So both of us seem to agree. Empty space is not literally nothing but is similar to the scientific meaning of nothingness & what the universe was before it began to exist. FOC Pro claims that causality is necessary like mathematics but seems to say the burden is on me to prove it isn't. As stated, causality is dependent on the material nature of things whereas mathematics is an immaterial concept. Pro can a priori affirm mathematics is necessary but he cannot a priori confirm causality is. Simply comparing it with mathematics does not demonstrate it as true. Pro misunderstands the purpose of my Hume point. It was not at all to defeat causality. It was to show we don't have a real understanding of it, so pro can't show that it’s a necessary law. Pro also hasn't explained it. We do see injury leading to pain but all pro is doing is observing the events. Sure they very likely cause each other, but all we observe is that they cause each other, not the actual link. You can go into scientific detail but that merely narrows it down to discussing individual smaller causes. Natural cause Pro falsely states that my only explanation for a natural cause was quantum events. I clearly argued that parts of the multiverse that exist outside of time is a plausible cause of the universe as well. Pro's refutation of quantum events being the cause, does not make sense. He says an infinite regress disallows it, but random quantum fluctuations do not entail an infinite regress because, well, they're uncaused. How does pro reason that uncaused events entail an infinite of events? He doesn’t. Uncaused events completely escape it. Pro has never explained what space & time are. I have however, so viewers have no reason to take his side. You can't explain space & time in an absolute sense. You can only explain it in the sense that it is necessary as an intuition. Pro still seems to believe the purpose of my point was to disprove the infinite regress problem. That was not at all my purpose. I was merely showing that transcending space & time is nothing meaningful since they are merely intuitions. Pro furthermore never addresses that the multiverse, if it existed, could transcend time. He merely states that an infinite amount of events is the problem. Well, existing outside of space & time directly escapes the infinite regress does it not? Or else why did pro say God must transcend those qualities? The multiverse escapes the problem the same way God would. A finite number of events is plausible if it transcends time. I have to wander how on earth pro can say nothing has no properties but still claim the universe came from it. Potential is a property, is it not? Whatever was before the universe had the potential to be the universe. If it did not have the potential, than it could not have become the universe. And why is pro arguing definitions? The scientific understanding of nothingness is not literal nothingness. That's just fact. Fine tuning The multiverse theory does not posit an infinite amount of universes. That's a complete misunderstanding. Pro's statements that I'm merely quoting a scientist making assertions is laughable. Is that not exactly what pro has been doing throughout this whole debate? Quoting Craig making assertions? Craig, probably the biggest theistic philosopher of today. A clearly bias source yet pro is making qualms about me quoting other scientists. I have provided evidence why the multiverse exits while pro has not. The amount of dark matter is only conceivable under the multiverse theory. It's not plausible under the single universe theory, a theory pro has reclined from substantiating yet he still assumes. Pro also provided no reason why a multiverse would entail ours would be smaller. I also have to note, pro implies that I can't prove the multiverse since it's outside of our universe. If I direct that reasoning to pros arguments than I guess we can't possibly theorize on the beginning of the universe since it was outside of this one. As you can see that point is obviously flawed. Pro has exaggerated the chances of fine-tuning throughout this whole debate. All his numbers are essentially meaningless for the most part. For example, it assumes there was an equal chance for all the possible constants of being as so & it assumes that they could have been otherwise. If you take a random number generator, the chances of it landing on 2 seem incredibly low, but what if all the possible numbers were 2, 10 & 59? Or what if 2 was the only possible number it could have landed on? The analogy is directly applicable to pros argument. He makes these massive numbers & argues those were the chances of life being able to occur. He has to prove it could have conceivably been as otherwise. How could the force of gravity have been different? Pro hasn't explained. I never argued that life could have evolved under any circumstance. I only argued that life could have evolved under different circumstances, a purely reasonable assertion. Pro was assuming life could have only evolved under the current constants which was clearly false. Metaphysics Firstly, pro states in the previous argument that only logic is necessary. If only logic is necessary than why doesn't only logic exist? Things that are contingent don't cause themselves so they wouldn't exist. I don’t need to explain what created existents because that is a meaningless statement. Existents are necessary which is why they don’t need a creator, just their internal necessity. Pro assumes there must be some final uncaused caused. Ontological necessity escapes it. Pro does commit the God of the gaps fallacy. While God explains it he is not conceivably necessary. I wasn’t arguing that everything was necessary but that existents are necessary. Showing that existents are necessary directly refute pros arguments because necessity escapes the need for an external cause (God). If existence was contingent, nothing would exist. That’s because nothing could make it exist. It’s implausible to say something would exist when existence is contingent. The only possible explanation is that existence is necessary because then we have a reason as to why there is something.