Does God exist

I just realized I have debated you on this before and I regret taking this now, seeing as how I always try to find new people to debate on this. Since I seem to be stuck with this either way at this point, I wish my adversary good luck. Remember my adversary has the BOP and must show that God does exist. It is my job to undermine him and show that he may not exist. Note this is the same argument I used in our first debate and I am just simply bringing it over because he failed to respond to any points I made. Contention 1Something from nothing. For all of those who do not read these type of debates on a regular basis, this is a counter argument of the KCA or Kalam Cosmological argument. The KCA states thisEverything that began to exist has a causeThe universe existsTherefore the Universe has a causeThe most obvious cause is God(this is added by some Christians)So for me to break this down, we need to look at the main question. Can something come from nothing? We first need to define the two types of nothing that often get brought up in these debates.Nothing as know it now - operates under the laws of physics and science that we have available at this moment.Nothing that existed before time - This is saying that what is nothing now, was not the nothing before the universe beganThe second can be automatically removed from this argument. It is scientifically impossible to prove, and is counter intuitive. If you say the nothing that we now know, is not the nothing that existed before the creation of the universe then we are assuming that all the laws of science came into fruition when the big bag occurred. The law of general relativity, law of thermodynamics, etc. So if we define nothing this way, it is quite possible to assume that there is a possibility that the universe could arise from nothing because there are variables at play that we do not know about. This is the most logical assumption and is far easier to arrive at than adding a God into the mix. Even if my adversary where to argue that this is the same line of logic that someone could support a God with, I could classify it as a logical assumption using the same line of logic that he uses to support that God. Since he bears the BOP, it would be on him to show that his theory is more sound that mine. Now lets look at the nothing that we know about now. If he were to state that the nothing then is the same type of nothing as we know now, then all we would have to do is show that something can come from nothing at this present point in time. Is this entirely or logically possible? Doctor Lawrence Krauss has written and entire book on this, and is quite precise with showing that something can actually come from nothing. I will summarize and emphasize some of the main points regarding the KCA in contention 2.Quantum Physics -Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levelsThis entire essential argument would entail that quantum fluctuations can produce energy and matter. So on extremely small scales nothing is a bubbling, boiling, brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can't see them. Check the youtube video down below ( http://www.youtube.com...) this demonstrates this as a projection. This depiction won the Nobel Prize, and shows that in the empty space in between the quarks of an atom, particles are spawning in and out of existence. In addition to this the large hadron collider is trying to mimic the conditions in which the universe came into existence, and is working on a way to measure dark matter. Some people even worry what would happen if it actually manages to produce the same conditions in which the universe actually spawned.So there is 2 logical conclusions we can draw from this(A) The nothing as now know it as shown it can produce something, as I have shown through the video i posted and stating that quantum fluctuations cause this to happen. (B) The nothing before the big bang is a different type of nothing. With us now knowing that the nothing we know now can produce something, is it such a far step to assume the nothing then could produce something as well. This is still a far more viable argument than a God of the gaps argument. http://www.lhc.ac.uk...Contention 2The type of universe in which we liveWe can live in a open,flat, or closed universe, this is depicted below. An closed universe would have positive curvature, a flat would have 0 and a open would have negative. This is all in euclidean terms. If we look at it further from this perspective, knowing what type of universe we live in would tell us the ending. If we lived in a closed, the universe would in the end re-collapse upon itself. Both an open and flat are infinite in spacial extent, the only difference is that in a flat universe the rate of expansion would slow down at some point. To sum this argument up in a nutshell we have to live in a flat universe because it is the only mathematically perfect one and it operates with the value of 0. Meaning if you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero net matter/energy. Since this is the case, we are operating under the same laws of physics which allow quantum fluctuations to happen and which could allow a universe to come from nothing. http://old.richarddawkins.net...Contention 3Occam's RazorThis basically states ""If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"Look at it like this, Occam's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation, so if the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary. We can also say that creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way, but creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Occam's Razor, should be eliminated. Rebuttal 1The Cosmological ArgumentSee Contention 1 and 2Rebuttal 2A fine tuned universeThis basically says that life and the universe is fine tuned, and if anything changed by (x) value we would not exist. So the most logical assumption is God. This seems to be the line of thought with this statement he has presented. This line of logic bears a few major flaws. One of which is that the argument depends on regarding humans as “special”, as though a universe without humans would be wrong in some way. Thus the argument is simply illogical in some ways and starts to postulate that humans are special and uses that for what it aims to prove. Just because we think we are special, does not mean we are. A recent study says this "Entities that are peculiar to and characteristic of their environment are exactly what you would expect from non-intelligent, natural processes. Intelligent design could produce either outcome: inhabitants that are well-fitted to their environment or inhabitants that are not (as in zoos). Non-intelligent processes could only produce the former. Thus, the fact that the universe appears to be “fine tuned” to produce its inhabitants is a direct prediction of atheism, but not of theism. Thus the fine-tuning argument actually argues for an atheistic universe."Who says the universe is tuned for life? As far as we know, intelligent life only occurs in one to the billions of the universes around us. It’s not the case that the universe is teeming with life, is it? If someone intelligent were going to design a universe to host life, they could do a way better job than by inventing our universe.The fact is we are just one species in millions and millions that evolved to the point where we could actually wonder why. At some point our galaxy will collide with another and we will be extinct just like most of the other species within the universe. This universe is not fined tuned for us, we are here by sheer probability and chance as evolution shows us. He wants to exam the cause, and the cause is quite simple. mathematical probability is the only reason we exist, and the main reason that we have to believe we exist. Rebuttal 3The moral argumentThis is an argument that William Lane Craig has decided to run with.It goes like thisGod is the only basis for which we can measure objectivity within morality. I will respond to this deeper in later rounds, but I am facing a character limit so must pick and chose main points for now.We can have objectivity without God. Anything that can promote happiness without directly effecting another human negatively can be used as an objective gauge. As well as anything that can progress us as a person or species and offer advancements. To say there is no gauge other than God is just wrong. It just depends if you look at it using ontology or epistemology. The main argument for this is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. This was coined by Socrates and asks this"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God"The problem this question raises for the Christian is a double edge sword. If something is good just because God says so, what happens if he condones rape or molestation. If not he is just simply reporting what goodness is, then he is no longer the standard for goodness and goodness is the submitting to an outside standard. In ClosingHis resolution was not met.