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

I regret that I will not have as much time as I thought I would to finish this debate as a family issue has come up. I will just have to make do with the following. I am sorry that I am not able to address round 5 as I would like. I hope that my rough draft will do. "Your objection rests on the specific scenario of virtual particles possibly popping into existence without cause. This a weak refutation of the first premise because. .. ." This ignored what I brought up about radioactive decay in my first debating round. "Citing one specific example of a possibly uncaused event that experts in the field don't really understand & defies how we observe the world to behave is not a feasible refutation of the first premise. " How we, animals that evolved to survive the plains of Africa, understand the universe with our own "common sense" can be wrong, especially when we look at the macro and micro worlds. "Quantum theory is bizarre. In order to try and understand it we need to forget everything we know about cause and effect, reality, certainty, and much else besides. This is a different world, it has its own rules, rules of probability that make no sense in our everyday world. Richard Feynman, the greatest physicist of his generation, said of quantum theory" . http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk... It is not saying that it cannot be understood, it is saying that in order to understand Quantum Mechanics we cannot use the normal logic of our universe. The Micro/Quantum Universe runs off of seemingly different rules. "Yes it lessens the credibility of pointing to QM for specific exceptions to nullify known aspects of the universe like everything that begins to exist requires a cause. " This shows a misunderstanding of any of those quotes. QM just has different rules than we do, but that does not mean that the discoveries are less credible. In a naturalistic view, the universe started out on a quantum level. That means that we have to address its own start with QM rules. You also have failed to address the following argument: (1) Causes must precede their effects in time (2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe) (3) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause (4) Theism requires that God be the cause of the universe (5) The universe cannot have a cause (6) Therefore, theism is false "You've listed chapters of the paper without giving any specific quotation/reference to believe that it operates outside of space-time. The first sentence states ". .. fluctuations in space-time. .. " You've just moved on to the next argument by telling me to read the paper. It's your job to provide the evidence within the context of the debate. " I did QUOTE what the paper said in my initial arguments, showing exactly what I am claiming. I also am still giving credit to PSD, I just pointed out that your quote was a misrepresentation. Your quote was about nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD, yet you attributed it to PSD. "The omitted part in the previous round that you'd criticized me for was" Which shows that what was being talked about was the nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD. It shows that PSD is a theory that helps explain the nondifferential fluctuations. "This is an attempt to dismiss my argument that quantum fluctuations occur in space-time, as was stated. " No, it is an attempt to have people see what the paper really says. The fluctuations OF spacetime that are part of PSD do NOT happen in spacetime, other quantum fluctuations do and are explained by PSD. "CON: "You did not give any logical, empirical, or collectively intuitive evidence [of objective morality and I have shown your examples to be false. ]"" Let me put your arguments into deductive reasoning with your logic. (1) Some morals are objective. (2) Some people act immoral. (3) Some people do not seem to find the objective moral wrongs to be immoral. (4) Those in premise 2 still recognize it is immoral. (5) Those in premise 3 are lying, the morals are objective. (6) Some morals are objective. (7) Premise 1 is supported because the conclusion (6) is reached. Let me show the proper deductive reasoning. (1) People act with different moral standards. (2) There does not exist a single moral that every person agrees if it is right or wrong. (3) Morals are not objective. "This referenced study hurts your case & favors objective morality. " How does it? If even a single person does not find a "moral wrong" to be a moral wrong it shows objective morality to be false. It does not matter what the majority says when you are trying to deal with absolutes. It is like saying all vegetables are green. A lot are, but not all are. You are arguing that because there are a lot of green vegetables that all vegetables are green, but that ignores all the other vegetables out there. "Objective morality derives from our own innate moral sense of being & experiences but here's a few sources arguing that objective morality exists too:" It seems that you have destroyed your whole argument. The link you provided says that objective morality can exist from an evolutionary standpoint. This means that even if I concede this point, which I do not, that it does not do anything to help validate a God existing as objective morals can arise from natural selection (without a god). "When an object's atomic structure is manipulated, its behavior changes. The specific actualized combo's of complex structures shows natural element specified-complexity. These instructions or natural forces are the basis for behaving in their actualized way. " All this argument is is a huge argument of special pleading. Your argument is that "specified-complexity" can only come from intelligence. You are also arguing that if any mechanical process appears to bring rise to "specified-complexity" that it means that the mechanical process must have been designed. The biggest problem is that you are jumping to the conclusion that there are "instructions" and that these "instructions" must come from a designer, and you provide no evidence for this. You just assert that it is true and make an argument based off of it. Specification is an a priori description of a system. "you can argue that a system isdesigned if it exhibits two properties: (1) It is informationally complex - that is, it's structure embodies a significant amount of information; and (2) it matches an independent description of a system that performs a specific task - and that independent description must be made, independent of observations of the system in question. " . http://goodmath.blogspot.com... What does this mean? Every system is specified. If every system falls under this "specified-complexity" that means that you would be saying that everything is either intelligent or was designed by something/someone intelligent (though you have no evidence of the need for a designer). It means that you are making an assertion without evidence, and making it so the asserted evidence fits the conclusion. The entire argument is bunk. "Your conclusion assumed that human beings can't deny objective evidence. Objective morality is also helped by your argumentagainst it. " I never said people cannot deny their own morality (I do not say objective morality since there is no evidence for it existing), but that does not mean morality is objective. I have pointed out the flaw in your reasoning above. "A valuation method is necessary if human beings are valuable. But is it intrinsic or extrinsic value? (See my R2 examples of why extrinsic criteria isn't necessary). " There does need to be a valuation method for there to be value, but there does not need to be a necessary valuation method. People can value others for their own reasons, meaning that there is a valuation method, but not a necessary valuation method. "My arguments are logical, based on concepts of consciousness" Most of your arguments presented have special pleading. "1) Multiverse or PSD? By using more possibilities you discredit your trust in one. " How are they exclusive? There can both exist a multiverse and have a PSD based universe. "2) (a) we only have evidence for one Big Bang producing cosmic background radiation so we can't know its expected uniformity (b) cosmic background radiation is caused by other known cosmic phenomena. " Source? "Scientists had predicted that it should be evenly distributed" . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... "The PSD that must exist within space-time as a necessary precondition of creating it? " Except that PSD does not have to exist within spacetime, that was you misrepresenting the paper. "intelligence only comes from intelligence" Where is your evidence for this? My opponent has made many assertions without evidence, without even sourcing them. Having either of those two things would make his points have any value, but he failed to bring anything forth except his claims. My opponent also decided to misrepresent my arguments and ignore the others. My naturalistic explanation has only been refuted by misrepresentation of what the parts are by my opponent. My opponent"s arguments included a lot of special pleading and circular logic. The deductive argument against a cause of the universe went untouched by my opponent. My argument of PSD has been completely misrepresented by my opponent. My opponent insists that all people that claim not to find one of his "objective morals" is a liar because of objective morality, circular reasoning. I urge you to look at the arguments, look at all the logical fallacies used by my opponent, and then look at the arguments made by both of us. My arguments backed up with evidence and sources, my opponents arguments based off of assertions.