A Cosmological Argument for God is Sound

Preface I don't think Pro has addressed many of my objections, so I will spend this round responding to what he has objected to. II. Counter-rebuttals to P1 Pro asserts: "Universe must have a cause, because everything has a cause." I would like Pro to actually substantiate this statement rather than flatly asserting it, moreover if EVERYTHING has a cause, then his God too, must have a cause. So he must include an exception somewhere, to which I give the following horned dilemma: P1) Either everything has a cause or not everything has a cause P2) If everything has a cause then God too must have a cause, which is a contradiction P3) If not everything has a cause, then the universe doesn't necessarily have a cause C) God must be either contradictory or unnecessary He has not addressed my fallacy of composition objection from my last round, which is a very significant problem for the KCA. One that really needs to be taken to heart. To give another analogy which is easier to grasp. Every piece in a chess game can only move in specific ways, but it doesn't follow that the chess game itself can only move in specific ways. It's a nonsensical statement, akin to saying "The time is yellow". On my spontaneity of quantum mechanics: "Contention is there are some subatomic events which occur randomly and spontaneously. Well, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause". It would be monumentally hard to prove a negative, but there are good reasons to accept this is true. I present the following argument: P1) All things caused occur predictably P2) Quantum events occur unpredictably C) Quantum events are uncaused Pro accepts P2, and P1 seems rather obvious. If there were preceding causal events then we would expect to see a traceable pattern in how they occur. We would expect to see a footballer kicking before the ball moves, or the wind to blow before the tree falls. .... "You would know that there various explanations for it (reason may be we are more illiterate about quantum mechanics than literate)." Please actually provide these explanations and the evidence that supports them. The burden of proof is on Pro. I gave good reasons to accept the antithesis, from indeterminism especially, where radioactive decay or other events cannot be predicted and can only be given as probability wave functions.[1] "And, also quantum mechanics doesn't work in the world of atoms ad molecules" This is flat out false. Quantum mechanics underpins all of chemistry, which is the world of atoms and molecules. Molecular bonds and electron motions are entirely described by quantum mechanics.[2] Even if that was true, it is irrelevant, it falsifies the first premise, which necessitates that everything has a cause. "so you can not just generalize events in subatomic level into whole existence. (That would be fallacy)" It's amusing that Pro claims a fallacy of composition for uncaused quantum events yet ignores it when it applies to his own position. Pro also ignores the contradiction I pointed out to Pro, that it's impossible to have a pre-existing cause before time exists. III. Counter Rebuttals to P2: Pro has still given absolutely no reasons to believe the universe has a beginning, so by all rights he has still failed to meet his BoP. Pro also ignores the evidence I presented last round for multiverse hypothesis, and misses the point. There are many possible explanations for the universe the way it is, and there is absolutely no reason to accept Pro's assertion that the explanation that proposes an absolute beginning is the correct one. Not only did I give evidence for eternal inflation I also gave other reasons why it's the best hypothesis, given that it solves the issues of geometric 'flatness' and the uniformity if the CMB extremely elegantly, with minimal assumptions regarding relativity, which is our current best theory of gravity and spacetime. I include a quote from Alan Guth: "It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously." - Alan Guth The multiverse portion is not as important as the implication that the universe simply has no beginning if it's eternal. "Fact is there cannot be infinite chain of causes, whether it is multiverse or quantum vacuum, or etc, at some point in the chain of causes there must be an uncaused cause." Please actually support this statement instead of just asserting it. And who is to say that the multiverse is caused or quantum vacuum itself is caused? "And if this cause is uncaused, it must be eternal. And because of this cause existed before space-time, therefore this cause is non-spatial, and atemporal. Which means this cause transcends space and time." If voters look carefully. We have something to hat is both eternal and atemporal, which is a contradiction as I already pointed out. Moreover he has given negative attributes, and nothing positive. Stating it's not X Y or Z doesn't say anything about what it IS. Take the following example. 1. It' not yellow 2. It's not round 3. It's not a solid These give virtually no information of what the object in question is, and this doesn't even include the things we don't know about yet. IV. Counter Rebuttals to a Conscious Cause Pro again hasn't fulfilled his BoP on why the cause must be conscious. So I see no reason to respond this in detail. Moreover it seems rather apparent that minds are not atemporal, and not eternal. Thinking requires time, as does perception and awareness, the mind is not timeless in any sense of the word. Moreover I would like to ask Pro what he was like before he was born, which would be the rather obvious problem for an eternal mind. Given that it's quite clear that a mind cannot be the cause of the universe, moreover we have absolutely no experience or evidence of minds working outside of a physical body, ergo there is no reason to assume that a mind can be physically causal sans a body, assuming it can even exist without a body. Please actually present your case instead of assuming it. V. References 1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 2. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics: With Applications to Chemistry (Dover Books on Physics) Paperback " 1 Nov 1985