Gods existence

[[ Kalam Cosmological Argument ]] 1. I don't know what kind of proof aside from empirical proof is relevant to this debate. In fact, the term PROOF implies that you can verify something with empirical evidence. Otherwise, it's not proof (and something like faith). Please explain to me what other kind of proof you speak of and how you can use it to make your case. Nevertheless, let's not get off topic here. This argument said that the universe must have had a beginning (therefore an instigator) and I said that this is not necessarily true; one argument claims that the universe simply ALWAYS existed and thus does not require a creator. If you can't prove that your theory is the more likely theory with empirical data, then the audience has no reason to accept that one over the other. 2. You said, "When it comes to quantum fluctuation you still have to have physical preconditions in order for the particles to come in and out of being." This is contrary to my point that in the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously without a cause. I also said that in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. So, since the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang was as tiny as a subatomic particle (at singularity point), it could have been created with an UNCAUSED quantum fluctuation. Therefore your point about physical preconditions is incorrect. If you'd like to argue this point, perhaps providing some scientific data that supports your claim would be helpful. [[ Teleological Argument ]] You said, "the question of who created god is not the point here." Actually, that's precisely the point. If the argument is that everything has a creator, then there's no reason to accept that God need not a creator. You continued, "And you don't understand what the definition of god is by definition he doesn't need a cause. there must be an uncaused cause whatever that cause is." Well, since you've seemingly conceded this argument anyway, I'll respond with the simple yet true answer of that same explanation could easily be said about the universe itself (being caused by an uncaused cause) thereby not only negating this argument but the previous one as well. [[ Moral Argument ]] Okay, once again all you're saying is that morals can't originate with us. However, you have given no explanation as to WHY. You can't just post other people's arguments for the existence of God and not be able to defend them. You have given us absolutely no reason to accept that there was a "law giver" and that morality isn't inherent (again ignoring the possibility of subjective morality or nihilism, etc.). Also, you say that you don't care about ethical systems that try to distinguish morality and instead are focusing on the ORIGINS of morality. Well, the ethical systems I mentioned aim to find the same answer and again are irrelevant to God. [[ Religious Need ]] First, not everybody seeks spirituality. Second, religion has been used as a political tool in the past throughout history and even as a scientific explanation when people needed to understand 'why.' This in no way proves that we have a religious need, and again completely ignores my point that even if we had that need, then the creation of religion or organized religion as Voltaire pointed out would satisfy that need. We might want or need to believe in God, but that doesn't necessarily make God real. [[ Conclusion ]] Pro has still not addressed any of my arguments, and he posted MY sources as his own...?!