Existence of God

Cosmological argument My opponent asserts that although the universe began to exist it does not apply to the first premise (1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. He also asserts that because the Universe encompasses time it can not have a cause that is in temporal relation (for example "before") to its existence. However, causes do not necessarily have to be antecedent to their effects. Causes can often be simultaneous to their effects, an example of which is a person sitting on a cushion and the cushion compressing to the weight. My opponents belief that the universe which encompasses everything can be created and caused from nothing is at face value absurd. It is one of this world's standing principles that from nothing and by nothing, nothing comes. My opponent is to have us believe that everything in the known universe was caused by nothing. I only hope the voters understand that such an argument is so obviously absurd. I'd like to add to this argument the idea that the cause must be a personal agent. If we accept the premise that everything that begins to exist must have a cause for we know that nothing can only cause nothing then we can discuss why the cause must be personal. Such a cause must be personal for if the cause was an impersonal set of conditions that existed eternally then the effect must exist eternally. For example, the condition for water to be frozen is for the temperature to be sub-zero. If this condition occurred eternally then its effect (water that is frozen) must occur eternally. For a cause to be eternal and its effect to begin the cause must be a personal agent who freely choses the action, much like a human who is sitting eternally may freely choose to stand. I feel as though I did not properly explain what an actual infinite is. My opponent states that black holes are examples of "actual infinites". This is a wrong statement. Black holes are examples of "potential infinites". The definition of an actual infinite is a set which has neither a beginning nor an end. An example of which is a line which can infinitely go in both directions. It is actual infinites which create logical absurdities (much like Hilbert's Hotel) whereas potential infinites are much like black holes. To visually understand it picture a ray where from one point can go infinitely in one direction. It is logically possible to infinitely add to an already existing entity much like a black hole. To state however that the universe is eternal is to say that the universe has a history of moments that stretches infinitely backwards and infinitely forward. Such "actual infinites" do not exist in the universe and therefore can not apply to the universe. Teleological Argument I believe my opponent fails to understand what would occur with the changing of these constants. These constants are not like those of the weather where life would be able to adapt. The universe itself would become desolate, unable to support stars or planets in any way. For instance, were α (the strength of the electromagnetic interaction) to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were > 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the universe would be warm enough for life. ^2 I fear I did not express the vanishingly small possibility of these constants falling as they do. The number of seconds in the history of the universe is about 10 to the 18th power. The number of sub-atomic particles in the entire universe is about 10 to the 80th power. Now with those numbers in mind, consider the following: Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of our universe existing as being one chance out of 10 to the power of 10 to the 124th power, a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement! ^1 Objective Morality Objectivity is defined as something existing independent of thought or observation pertaining to reality. Therefore the idea that morality is objective is much like the idea that 2 + 2 = 4. Objective morality exist necessarily under this definition. It is up to the person saying 2 + 2 = 5 or that morality is not objective to prove that this is the case. An analogy of this is asking a person why does salt taste like salt? It is a properly basic taste much like objective morality is a properly basic fact.