A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists

It is quite clear that we are debating the existence of the Christian God of the bible since Pro has quoted Romans 1:20 along with his definitions. I think we can move forward and direct our attention to his opening argument. In order to win this debate Pro has the burden of proof to show that “A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists”. This means that Pro is obligated to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position: there is insufficient evidence that a super-natural (god) exists, to his position that she, in fact, does exist. Let’s examine the first claim. Pro: How do we know a Super-Natural force (God) exists? We can answer this question with another question. What caused the universe? If there is a way to show that the universe is here because of God, then that obviously proves He is real. There are a couple of problems here. How do you solve a mystery? Pro’s solution is to introduce another mystery, the origin of the universe. This is also a fine example of a tautology. If I can show that Professor Plum did it with a wrench then I know Professor Plum did it. A tautology is an illogical way to argue because does not bring any new information into the discussion. Rather, it is an argument for what has already been stated, and has not been backed it up with something else. Pro has amended his original god claim and obligatory burden to also having to provide convincing evidence that the universe was the “caused” handiwork of his god. Pro claims that there are only three ways the universe was “caused” and it was caused it was by the god he has so generously defined. When stated properly it is better known as the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Classically this argument is a poor argument from the git-go, and if it were really true we would not be here debating god’s existence. Unfortunately, Pro has made a tremendous mistake and I think I just heard William Lane Craig weeping. The difference between Pro’s attempt at the argument and Craig’s is that Craig’s argument “does not, in itself, produce the Christian God” that Pro is arguing for. You can read it for yourself at the Christian website- . http://carm.org....Before moving on we need to address another problem created by Pro’s claim:So what caused the Universe? There are only three possible answers to this question. (1) The universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist. (2) The universe created itself out of nothing. (3) A Super-Natural Power (God) created the Universe. This statement is false is a couple of ways. The first way Pro claims the universe was “caused” is not a cause at all. Pro writes: “(1) The universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist. ” This is not a “cause” but a state of affairs. That leaves Pro with only two ways the universe was caused. Fortunately the world of science and cosmology doesn’t leave us empty handed in the realm providing good models that explain the naturalistic origins for the universe. For example consider:“Quasi-Steady State Cosmology” “Quantum Eternity Theorem”“Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal”“Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time”“Hartle –Hawkin Model”. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...http://rationalwiki.org...http://arxiv.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...There are many models that have been overlooked by Pro and therefore his claim to only three possible causes for the existence of the universe fails. The argument also fails on behalf of special pleading. Pro offers no explanation for what caused the First Cause nor can he without special pleading which is an illogical argument. Next Pro attempts to use an argument from CARM and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as leverage for his argument. Is the Universe eternal? Second Law of Thermodynamics- states that entropy( unavailable energy) in an isolated system will always increase. The main problem with his whole argument is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the universe in its entirety. The Law applies only to closed systems and the universe is not a closed system. This position has not been challenged in the scientific community, let alone refuted and therefore should be rejected.