The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Thank you for your time, I shall wrap up my arguments and explain why I have won. Appeal to Authority: This differs from expert testimony, my opponent inappropriately relies on an argument made by someone with no expertise in this area. Thus committing an appeal to authority and my opponents claim is untrue. Nor will I accept any such claim unless it came from an expert http://www.nizkor.org... Begging the Question: My opponent does this several times and simply rejects my claim by simply claiming that it isn't true and does not ever correct his reasoning. Meaning that he has done this twice in this debate as noted. Thus, it is significant as clearly my argument is superior. This is like saying The bible is true because it says so in the Bible; it's circular. http://www.nizkor.org... *Note the second example, in my two objections due to my opponent's question begging, my opponent follows the exact same model of circular reasoning, it's just a different topic. I asked him to show me a Modus Ponens that was not logically valid. He couldn't. Association Fallacy: Again the PSR – by his OWN SOURCE – noted that it does not require empirical evidence, it's only close association was through the KCA, that was it. To claim legitimacy through association on the basis of empirical evidence a priori is a simple honour by association and misrepresents what PSR actually is; an unreliable principal with a built in agenda to assert the KCA's pseudo-legitimacy. There is no way to assert empirically that the PSR is true as my opponent claimed, it is only a principal, one of which I made the case we should not follow. http://en.wikipedia.org... Bare Assertion Fallacy: My opponent submitted that the truth of the premise of his arguments can be known a priori. Which a priori knowledge is so self evident that you don't even have to get off your couch to see if it is true or not to justify the PSR. The issue with this is what my opponent was claiming. He was not claiming all bachelors are single, which is a priori, he was claiming that something cannot come from nothing. This IS a bare assertion fallacy because it assumes a state of nothingness is a point in space and time completely empty of all matter, problem is this assertion of “nothing” scientifically and empirically does not exist. The closest thing you can have to nothing is a Quantum Vacuum as I have shown, and that both philosophy and science claim my opponents nothing simply isn't true. Ergo, bare assertion fallacy, his premise is not “self evident”. I've already proven, and derailed my opponents argument here. We cannot assume this type of “nothing” exists as “truth”. Furthermore, my opponent completely dropped this claim until his final round. I think that's enough to point out he conceded it. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com... Correlation/Causation: Isn't this type of personal also physical? This type of fallacy is like saying someone moved out of a house and said houses' roof was fine, but when a new person moves in and the roof suddenly needs repairs, the new person in the house probably caused it. Which isn't true in my hypothetical. This is no different here, as my opponents argument rested on the assertion that all else ruled out, then GOD. But even if both his premise were true, this does not mean God, because correlation is not causation. Fallacy Fallacy/ my Accusations: (see video) http://www.youtube.com... That is a fallacy as I actually refuted my opponents positions. Him claiming these are illegitimate via straw-man, and thus the arguments are negated by default is a fallacy fallacy, they were not a fallacy and even if they were it means the deduction is flawed, but the argument's themselves are not and still need to be refuted. No drops were made. Ignoratio: Even his own source showed Present-ism is NOT the same as A theory of time (one can endorse A theory and not presentism, instead growing universe theory). In fact presentism has been around philosophy for centuries, A theory of time came around in the early 1900's signalling they are not one in the same. Furthermore, my opponent submits A theory through presentism (when they are not the same) and via a paradox of grim reapers (which have nothing to do with this debate due to presentism!) But I still refuted it, even though it was irrelevant to cover my own butt. My opponent substituted A theory for presentism (a different issue) and argued A theory via presentism, which is an Ignoratio elenchi. This is embarrassing for my opponent. Grim reaper for presentism, NOT A Theory as he asserts. http://en.wikipedia.org... Reductio Ad Absurdum: It was due to the fact that my opponents arguments tried to claim that a silly result would follow through my logic, that the universe would be impossible to exist, which simply isn't true. My claim was clear: that this type of nothing had no rules so something could happen. My opponent acknowledges the legitimacy of this, then proceeds to show it's silly http://en.wikipedia.org... The question here isn't the legitimacy of science, but rather what does science show us? And does it account for a God? It does not, and it even skews our understanding of Quantum, Physics as I have shown, my opponent dropped several fallacies I called him on, and even showed his misrepresentation of sources. That almost everyone in the sciences agrees to B theory of time not A, and that in the case of philosophy versus science, science empirically and objectively is superior as my opponent claims as well. If God does not have a beginning, then it's B theory of time because he always existed, otherwise it's question begging. And my opponents form of nothingness simply does not exist. And as a result of showing the flaws of premise 1 and 2, the conclusion fell. This, I believe is why I won. The key point here is the universe always existed, special relativity disproves A theory of time, string theory accounts for all and is more legitimate as my opponent showed the spurious argument, and we know it's more valid because the neo-lorentzian view does not account for relativity which has been shown to be true. String does. Case and point. The KCA is a horrible arguments not in line with what we know today. It causes the person arguing for it to cherry pick, and relies on numerous fallacies. If there is a creator, who created him? Thank you!