God exists

Kalam The necessary and efficient causes It is important to realize that necessary causes are not really causes in any sense along the lines of what P.1 states. Of course there are necessary causes for certain thing, but that's different to actually saying it came about by causation. For example, atomic decay is supposidly uncaused but that doesn't mean there aren't necessary causes. One necessary cause would be that the atom exists in the first place! Necessary causes are the same things as necessary conditions. Necessary conditions are completely different to actual causes. Sufficient causess are the real issue. I do not see how necessary causes are very relevant. The KCA posits a sufficient cause. My opponents statements that, "there seem to be somewhat of a general consensus in modern physics" that fluctuations contain no sufficient cause, very much only help to support my case. Nothingness? My opponent negates the idea of something from nothing (ex-nihilo). Therefore, that the universe did not come about from nothing according to his views. However, this does seem irregular with his other latter points. If the universe did not come about ex-nihilo then it obviously follows it came from something. Therefore matter or energy existed before the universe. This is along the same lines as saying, the universe existed prior to it's existence. Physical matter would have to have existed before the big-bang. This presents a big problem to my opponent. He's already disproven infinity, therefore how do we account for this pre-universe physical realm? By my opponents own arguments, we cannot have an infinity so the pre-universe matter had to come from somewhere. You would have to maintain ex-nihilo as that is the only way to avoid the infinite problem, otherwise you'll have an infinite regression of causes, which has already been showin implausible. Potential nothingness We first have to establish what nothingness actually is. Do we talk about nothingness in the matter/energy concept or more metaphysically? Well, I see no reason to state that nothingness possessing potential to be something is not actually nothing. When we talk about nothing, we're saying nothing in the physical sense. No energy or matter. Therefore nothing can have potential to be something and still be categorized as nothing. Potential is metaphysical. It does not disprove nothingness. Falacy of composition Even if we were to establish a causal nature of the universe, that in no way entails those laws apply to things outside of the universe. My opponent will argue that our universe operates in a cause and effect nature, but that does not establish that the whole universe had a cause simply because things inside of the universe have causes. Therefore my opponent needs to adress this unfounded jump. Quantum events The appearance of "virtual particles" have been observed to come into being spontaneously and stochastically in empty space, meaning there is no external cause and it is impossible to predict when it will happen. Quantum fluctuations are the "temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation. " Now though the source says "out of nothing", empty space is not literally nothing but the closest to nothing we can get. We have yet to observe anything coming from absolute nothing. [1]As Taner Edis says, "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. Energy fluctuations out of nothing create short-lived particle-antiparticle pairs, which is why the vacuum is not emptiness but a sea of transient particles. An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the imagination. " [2] "In classical physics (appliable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy. The picture [below] illustrates the kind of activities going on in a quantum vacuum. It shows particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle"[1] . http://www.debate.org...; onclick="document. location='/phantom/photos/album/1054/13365/'" src=". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/2/1054/26907-1054-x5v6y-a. jpg" alt=". http://www.debate.org...; /> Modal Ontological Argument What is a maximal being? When people say "maximal being", they're either saying one in which no greater can be conceived, or one in which is greatest to the most possible extent. The ontological has one major flaw. It assumes that existing in every possible world is a possible attribute. It assumes that greatness can entail being neccessary. Now, in truth, we might say it is greater to exist in every possible world than in one possible world, but can we logically ascribe objects the definition of being necessary? We maybe can for ideas like mathematics, but that follows different lines of reasoning. Take the syllogism bellow for example. P.1 We can conceive of a song in which no greater can be conceived. P.2 This song exists in either no possible world, some possible world, or every possible world. P.3 It is greater to exist in every possible world. P.4 Thus a maximally great song exists. By using the logic of the ontological argument applied to other things, we can derive what would exist if the logic was correct. By doing so, we can see that it is clearly flawed. A maximally great song is an irregular thought. It shows that, we cannot give attributes to beings such as existing in every possible world simply because it is greater too. Paradoic arguments P.1 It is better to work in perfection than non-perfection. P.2 A maximally great being would work in perfection. P.3 The universe is not perfect. P.4 Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist. God is by definition, the creator of the universe. As shown above, God would create the universe in perfection. All I need to do is show that the universe is not perfect and I will disprove a maximally great being. I think it self-evident that the universe is not perfect. The universe is coming to an expiration date. As it continue to expand it will eventually collapse on itself, causing the end of the universe. As a maximally great being would work in perfection, the universe would not be heading for an end. [3] P.1 It is better to be good than evil. P.2 A maximally great being would be good. P.3 A maximally great being would want good rather than evil. P.4 Evil is very prevalant. P.5 Therefore, maximally great being dos not exist. Interesting how we can actually bring very similar logic as the problem of evil into refuting the ontological argument. What is greater, good or evil? It is not a subjective question thus there is an answer in which we can subscribe to God. I think we can prove simply that good is better than evil. Good is commonly valued by everyone, and evil is very devalued. It is greater to be valued than devalued. Therefore a maximally great being would be good as it is greater to be valued. A good being would want goodness rather than evil. Just the fact that 2,800 children die every day of malaria, makes evil a pretty much self-evident fact. [1] . http://universe-review.ca... [2] . http://atheism.about.com...[3] . http://skyserver.sdss.org... [4] . http://listverse.com...