The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

‘The LCA does not claim that because we do not know the cause of the universe, the cause must be God.’ To say everything has an explanation is false. The PSR says that there must a reason. Not an explanation. An explanation implies information. No information is ignorance. Therefore it is an appeal to ignorance. Doctors Fool Second Opinion: Reconfirmation P1 F=Fallacy R=rebuttal A=Re-affirmation RF4 Con: ‘As for F4, my opponent claims that necessary existence violates the PSR.’ This is false, however, as the PSR does not claim that everything must have a cause but rather an explanation. AF4 The Fool: PSR(The Principle of sufficient reason) claim that everything has a reason. It is synonymous with the following: 1. P->Q (in fact this is exactly what it is which is just long linguistically state of the logical conditional) 2. If there is something it must conform something. aka something coming from nothing is not a sufficient condition. 3. For every effect there is a cause. Aka a cause is sufficient condition for and affect. And explanation is not a sufficient condition for anything but knowledge. We need not look any further then the title Principle of Sufficient Reason, where Reason has been equivocated with explanation, (Equivocation fallacy), making your source an Unwarranted appeal to authority fallacy. The principle of sufficient condition is a priori knowledge, in that all inferences we make presuppose the concept. We couldn’t be rational without it. Using it and defining it are not the same. RF5 Con: ‘My opponent claims that God must have an ‘explanation’ in F5 and I agree with this.’ Strawman Fallacy AF5 The Fool: No I claimed it does not follow that we can know all explanations about all that exist. I have rejected this clearly; by saying there are many things in the universe that we cannot explain. And we may never explain them all. I said according to CON aka Not Fool, ‘everything that exists must have an explanation.’ That is God existence cannot be explained by his definition that is as perfection and therefore necessary. The defining of god is not the same as the existence of god. You need to prove such perfection; he is also defined as the creator. Begging the Question. Defining something doesn’t prove its existence. Note F1, F2 and F3 Still remain as well for Cons premise 1 More of the same The Con: But again, solely contingent beings cannot explain themselves for it would force an ad infinitum regress. F1 The Fool: The PSR presupposes determinism therefore making everything a necessity by its cause and its cause being a necessity by its cause. F2 An infinite regress is not by necessity false in any sense. We simply explain in math that a line segment has an infinite amount of points between A and B. It’s perfectly understandable explanation. F3 Con is confusing that we could never know all the causes with there must not be and infinite amount of causes.. And I agree that we many never know. I don’t know is a sometimes the best answer. F4 Nothing need be explained by its own nature, we could simply understand the universe how that which we refer to came about. (The universe is always changing.) F5 Lastly we only have only recognized cause in the Universe, anything reference to the cause of the universe begs the question. F6 But even if we allow that, it would be based on inductive inference. E.g. in the past the sun has come every day. But it doesn’t follow logically that it will come tomorrow. Inductive inferences are experience based. Not logically inferred. So like all science they could never give 100% certainty. Aka not a logical proof. I no he didn’t F6 Con: Based on an extension of modal logic we can know that just as beings exist contingently or necessarily, everything may be explained contingently or necessarily. Begs the question The Fool: not only does it bed the question, but he principle of sufficiency reason, which was defined by Anaximander of Miletus 610 BCE, is not compatible with Modal logical at all. As I said if there is a reason for everything then nothing is contingent. And that is the failure of Modal logic all together. Universe explained P1 By Principle of Sufficient Reason something cannot come from nothing. P2 Law of conservation The First and most important point is that the Big Bang only states that the constituents of the universe were a singular. This is stated clearly as a condensed hot state of matter which is made up of elements that make up the universe that we know it today. This can’t be expressed enough. That is there is no ex nihilo (out of nothing) factor in any way at all in the big bang theory. Ex nihilo is purely theological conception only. Secondly Existence=Existence ‘How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown’ (Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE) By the law of Non-contradiction. P3 Energy is destabilisation by definition. The universe is in constant flux; energy cannot be created or destroyed, so universe is constantly changing P4 It is the forms of existence that change not existence itself. ‘The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity,’ That is what exist is always forming and un-forming, into new structures and out of old and new forms of existence are coming into and out of recognition whether mind or matter, and energy or whatever such form. P5.That is time does not exist in the universe outside our minds. (via untimely Fool) I didn’t say time is relative. I said its an illusion to think it exist outside our mind. only change exist outside. Therefore we can explain the universe without supernatural explanations. Vote Fool!