God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe

I'll paraphrase some of your arguments while staying true to your logic to preserve char. space. - CON: The extended Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed and I have shown why in the previous round. - My objection to this is that the "extended" Kalam Cosmological Argument I've put forth in the previous round is not = to the one you've critiqued in the first round. - The Kalam's first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." - This is true, but with very specific exception, it is possibly untrue. The reason why I had extended the Kalam Cosmological Argument was to address possible very specific exceptions, namely, that something can begin to exist without cause in the case of virtual particles except that space a necessary precondition for these virtual particles to exist. - Quantum mechanics is generally not very well understood and virtual particles possibly have a cause that science hasn't yet uncovered. Richard Feynman, a pioneer in discovering mechanisms of quantum mechanics, is famously quoted as saying "I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics.” http://www.spaceandmotion.com... - CON:"Spacetime itself fluctuates on the quantum level [and addressed why space can be created for quantum fluctuations]" - Actually, this is not true. Your source explicitly states: "Nondifferentiable fluctuations in space-time on a Planck scale introduce stochastic terms into the equations for quantum states . . .primary state diffusion (PSD)." http://arxiv.org... PSD operates in space-time not outside of it. If you disagree please provide an explicit sourced explanation. - CON: "some morals are objective" There is nothing solid to support this. - I have given logical. empiricial, and collectively intuitive evidence that some morals are objective rather than all subjective (R2). Given Occam's razor, the simplest theory that fits the evidence should be accepted. Given that the evidence best describes some morals as being objective, not all morality is subjective. - CON: "Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here." - Are laws not based on ethics? And are ethics directly related to morals? By differentiating these terms, you imply that they have no relation to each other when in fact they most certainly do. - CON: What about murderers and rapists? Are you saying that every single one of them finds murder immoral? That they all find rape immoral? - First, it is a baseless assertion to imply that all murders and rapist don't find rape or murder immoral. Humans have the capacity to defy things they deem to be immoral for the sake of pleasure. EX: cheating on a significant other. - Ted Bundy was one of the most prolific & evil serial killers in American history murdering random victims just for his own desires. This is what he had to say in his final interview: - "I can only liken it to (and I don’t want to overdramatize it) being possessed by something so awful and alien, and the next morning waking up and remembering what happened and realizing that in the eyes of the law, and certainly in the eyes of God, you’re responsible. To wake up in the morning and realize what I had done with a clear mind, with all my essential moral and ethical feelings intact, absolutely horrified me." http://www.pureintimacy.org... CON: "Joseph Stalin, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Where does this quote indicate Stalin's sense of objective morality? Death solving problems (probably of responsibility) is not the same as saying it is not immoral to murder man to solve my problems. - CON: "[Psychopaths] are the people who know exactly what they are doing and want to inflict as much damage as possible. With no remorse, they are free to do as they please" - Their remorse is subjective to the observer. Whether they have remorse or not does not exclude a sense of objective morality. If I value my own desires higher than my sense of moral wrong, I will not have value regret above what I pursue highly. - CON: Only 55.2% of the people [that raped who were] interviewed said they felt guilt. These statistics are actually damaging to your case. Why would a majority of people that engage in an objectively neutral moral act then feel that they behaved immorally? Do you accept the possibility that people who commit rape might try to justify their own actions by claiming that they aren't morally accountable? CON: this really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective. How on earth does this show that rape being immoral is subjective? The majority of these rapists conceded that they committed immoral acts! If all morality is subjective, then people engaging in immoral actions have no reason to see their actions as immoral. Your conclusion rests on the impossibility of someone to disregard objective evidence. Objective evidence can be disregarded by somebody though! People have the capacity and incentive to disregard objectively immoral acts if found guilty. The question is whether our understanding of morality better fits an objective or subjective view of morality. The existence of objective morality is better supported and explained than all morality being subjective (R2). This conclusion is helped by Occam's razor. CON: There is no evidence of the first premise."(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information." - Of course there is! Out of how many possibilities does the complex structural and behavioral nature of iron, boron, helium, etc., have for behaving the way that they do? They behave in exponentially less possible ways than not. Is the nature of something specified and complex relative to all other possibilities? Of course. Iron doesn't randomly change the properties or nature of itself or behave in unpredicted ways. A vast majority of possible natures and structures of iron aren't actualized in this universe. The instructions (information specifying atomic structure and behavioral properties of iron) require specified-complex information. The only known cause of specified-complex information are agents capable of specified-complex information. Given that intelligence, defined as specified-complex information, has only shown to come from prior intelligence, then intelligence is required for this specified-complex information. If specified-complex information only results from intelligence, then the intelligence nature exhibits requires an intelligent causal agent. CON: (2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity."- Which means that said agent would have to have "specified complex information", making it go on ad infinitum. There is also no evidence to say this is true. - It means that the origin all specified complex information must have existed from a causal agent existing eternally. Given that God exists outside of time in order to create time, there is no contradiction here. - CON: We see scratches on stones all the time. Written language is just scratches and lines that we have given meaning to. Something like the Rosetta Stone is unlikely to form, but statistically possible. . ." - Notice that my original assertion "We wouldn't assume . . ." and the reason why we wouldn't assume is because we observe that specified-complex information is the result of intelligent beings. Is specified-complexity created by vastly more improbable or impossible means more likely than something far more probable like an intelligent causal agent? - CON: People sometimes don't treat human beings with value. Therefore not all humans are intrinsically valuable. You did not support your previous (#) arguments with evidence. - The argument rests on whether objective or subjective morality is the more likely competing explanation. It's possible to disregard objective moral truths for individual desires so exceptions don't automatically conclude that all morals are subjective. I'll ask again, if humans have extrinsic worth, what is the necessary criteria to value a human being? - Logic is evidence. Do you disagree? I could point to any sourcelss claim that you've made... "Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here." And claim that you equally guilty of breaking the "source all claims rule." I'm hoping that this debate will be fruitful and won't devolve into an accusatory point-grab for conduct points. - CON: [Occam's razor supports naturalism . . .] - more like . . . - A: We know that one universe exists and there is no physical evidence that more than one exists. B: We evidence of intelligence in our universe because nature mirrors the specified-complexity of our own intelligence A: We do not have a sound naturalistic explanation of how the universe could have begun. B: We know that something must exist eternally to be the thing from which everything comes to avoid an infinite regress in a temporal existence. The cause for our existence must be transcendent of time, space, matter and energy in order to create time, space, matter, and energy and because a physical cause cannot cause itself without physical preconditions. Occam"s Razor supports the one with the least assumptions, which is B, or an intelligent design explanation of the universe. "We also can take into consideration that there was a super complex computer simulation of the universe using the currently discovered laws and theories of the universe, and the result? The simulated universe was almost exactly like our own. There were a few differences, showing that we have more laws and theories of the universe to discover, but looking at how close we are shows that the naturalistic view is very well supported.http://www.haaretz.com......; This uses laws and phenomena that already exist that were created in the instance of the big bang. Something cannot have a causal effect if it doesn't yet exist. - Back to you, Con.