I confirm Con’s request that Raltar and Ramshutu should avoid voting on this debate and so we ask the moderators to remove their votes in case either user avoids our restriction.
Origin of temporal events
A hidden premise or a merged argument?
“Therefore since precedence is necessarily temporal and composed of temporally related events, Pro concedes here that nothing preceded the universe because time hadn't originated yet.”
Notice the new premise introduced here: “Since precedence is necessarily temporal”
. This premise was never mentioned in Con’s original presentation of the first point in the opening arguments. The original conclusion of Con’s first argument was that the origin of the temporal events must be timeless and that was the only conclusion made in Con’s first argument
. Of course, I naturally agreed since this conclusion is implied in the conclusion of the Kalam argument that the cause of the universe is timeless and that is the only conclusion I conceded
. However, it was Con’s second point that argued that because creation and precedence are temporal and since the causal origin of the universe is timeless then the origin of the universe can not be a creation event. To avoid further confusion, this argument will be addressed in the rebuttals of the second point.
The other two objections that Con provide miss the big picture and are concerned over irrelevant details like whether “prior” is the best word to use. He argues that “prior” actually means precedes in time and so can not have the sort of connotations that I draw upon in my first argument. But again, objections to the extent that precedence is temporal are in the domain of Con’s second point not in this point since the only conclusion made in this argument is that the origin of temporal events or the universe is timeless or not subject to time. The objections related to precedence and creation are in the domain of the second point and so will be addressed there.
Since the only conclusion made here in this point is that the causal original of the temporal events or the universe is timeless and since Con has failed to show how the universe having a timeless cause negates the proposition then no real rebuttal needs to be provided here. If anything, this argument only supports my case by providing further corroboration of the Kalam argument by showing that the cause of the universe is necessarily timeless. Con had to show how the origin of the universe or temporal events being timeless shows that God does not exist. Since he has failed to do so, then this argument does not negate the resolution and so Con has failed to fulfill their burden of proof and support their case.
Con’s Second point
A Brief Recap
Con’s point here was that since the origin of the universe would be timeless and since precedence and creation are temporal, then the origin of the universe can not be a creator.
However, as argued before, this argument is misconceived on two occasions. Firstly, even if the cause exists timelessly, that does not mean that his action of creation can not be temporal. As argued before, many models allow us to understand how
it is possible that a timeless cause could bring the universe into being. However, it should be emphasized that such a project is not necessary since the Kalam Argument is only concerned with proving that a timeless cause did in fact
create the universe but makes no claims about how
it might have done so. One such model would be the model that I briefly introduced after defending the Kalam argument in my opening arguments. The actual model is simple: God exists timelessly then due to his intelligent volition decides to create the universe. This act of creation is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time and so can be temporal. So while God’s existence is timeless, his act of creating the universe is temporal. This also coheres with the conclusion of the Kalam argument that the cause is volitional. Given the timelessness and the eternity of the cause; if the cause of the universe is impersonal and unintelligent, then the universe would be eternal. But since the universe began to exist, then the cause is personal and intelligent.
Moreover, God could be the creator of the universe in the sense of being the sustaining creator of the universe so that if God did not exist, then the universe will not exist. In the same sense that a candle sustains its flame in existence and so it is its active creator. So that even if we grant Con’s argument here, the resolution will not be negated since God could be the sustaining cause of the universe while not being its originating cause.
Creators and Causes
enough for Pro to talk about cause and effect
here, rather he has to talk about creator and created product
There is a very a clear sense in which a creator is a being that is responsible for the existence of effect. A sustaining cause likewise is responsible for the existence of the effect in the sense that if the cause did not exist, neither would the effect. So Con is mistaken here. A sustaining cause absolutely is a creator. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a creator as any being that creates  where one of the understandings of “create” is to cause . If Con has any other understanding of how I use the word “create” or “creator” then he is misunderstanding my argument and subsequently attacking a strawman.
How can God timelessly create?
Con repeatedly asks:
>“Without using time or temporal concepts, how do you know the flame is dependent on the candle and not the other way around?”
>“Pro can you explain how the candle sustains (present indicative tense) something without preceding time or the passage thereof
or "timelessly" as you claim?”
This has already been answered. The proponent of the Kalam argument need not maintain that God’s act of creation is timeless nor is any such conclusion implied in the Kalam argument. The proponent of the Kalam argument need only maintain that God’s existence is timeless without having to make any claims about his act of creation being timeless.
I even provided a model above that shows how God could exist timelessly while his act of creation could be temporal since it is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe.
What if God has a cause?
Con repeatedly asks:
>“We know the origin of temporal events has a beginning, but without time, how do you know that the origin of temporal events didn't bring about the existence of your creator?”
> “Can you differentiate between the initial cause
and the initial effect
without using temporal concepts/relationships?”
> “How do you know the flame isn't ontologically causing the candle if you're claiming there's no time difference between the two?”
>“Without any justification from Pro, god "not beginning to exist" is a bare assertion and it can;t be used to discern the difference between the creator and the created product.”
This one is also relatively easy to answer since it is based on a misunderstanding of the Kalam Argument. Notice the first premise of the Kalam argument “whatever begins to exist
has an external cause”. The Kalam then goes and argues that the universe began to exist and so needs an external cause. This external cause or God can not even in principle have a cause since he did not begin to exist and so does not require an external cause. What’s the proof that the external cause did not begin to exist? The proof of this is that the cause is external to the universe and so is outside the natural world (supernatural) and its dimensions (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical). Since the cause is timeless, then there is no passage of time or events so there is no event where he does not exist and another later event where he begins to exist since, as stated before, his existence is timeless and does not experience a passage of time or events. Therefore, the cause is everlasting and beginningless. We also argued in the argument from contingency that God is necessary. It is impossible for the necessary being to have come into or went out of existence since coming into being would mean that it was preceded by a period of non-existence prior to its emergence and going out of existence means it ceases to exist. But the necessary being cannot possibly not exist, thus the being is eternal and everlasting.
“Multiple models have shown that remaining energy and space is an expression of fluctuating energy ex nihilo and space. Fluctuating-->remaining is simply not creation ex nihilo; it's remaining energy instead of fluctuating energy.”
This point is more in-line with Con’s third argument and so will be addressed in the rebuttals of the third point to avoid further confusion.
A creator of the universe is not necessary
“I argued that naturally the universe can originate without creation
. Fluctuating-->remaining is not creation
, it is a guaranteed instability
of quantum fluctuations which, when unstable, are expressed as remaining energy and space instead of fluctuating energy and space. This is not creation at all. Origin and creation are simply not the same thing, because an origin is necessarily a point at which something originates and creation is a series of related events, one after the other, used to bring about the existence of something.
The two terms are different. origin - the point
where something begins. Oxford Dictionaries - origin
If Con wants to argue that the universe originated, that is fine. According to Con, to originate is to begin to exist so if Con argues that the universe originated or began to exist then he would be supporting the Kalam argument by defending the second premise. However, as stated in the Kalam argument, whatever begins to exist has an external cause, so the universe would need an external cause that would have the key divine attributes like timelessness and immateriality, as demonstrated in the opening arguments. It is not enough for Con to assert that the universe can begin to exist without a cause for we have already provided rational proof for the premise that “whatever begins to exist has an external cause”. Con has to demonstrate that the evidence provided for the first premise of the Kalam Argument is mistaken. As argued before, quantum events like quantum fluctuations do not happen without a cause nor is it possible for them to do so since that would contradict the rational demonstrations given for the premise “whatever begins to exist has an external cause”. Rather, Quantum fluctuations do have a cause namely, the unstable quantum vacuum energy . Moreover, even if the Quantum fluctuations were observed without observing a cause, that does not mean that they were uncaused. It could very well be that they have a cause that we could not observe.
Question to Con: Suppose you see a virtual particle fluctuating into existence, how would you know that the virtual particle was uncaused rather than had a cause that you did not or could not observe? 
“Ok, well fluctuating quantum nothingness-->remaining energy is NOT CREATION, so by agreeing to this, Pro concedes quite a bit here.”
No, I do not. I agree that the universe could have came out of nothing but I believe that in this case, God would be the cause of the universe that brought it into existence out of nothing because the universe beginning to exist could not happen without an external cause as demonstrated in the first premise of the Kalam Argument.
Consciousness is contingent on neuroscience
Con claims that I strawman them. However, I do not. All the evidence that Pro has provided in his opening arguments suggests that consciousness is contingent on neuroscience in the sense of being altered and changed by it. The evidence does not support any other conclusion and if Con wants to infer another conclusion from the evidence, he has to show how the conclusion is entailed by the evidence rather than merely assert it.
The only sort of data we have is that varying some neuroscience in the brain (coffee, drugs, etc.) also alters mental events and our consciousness by giving us different emotions, feelings, etc. In this sense, these states of consciousness are contingent on neuroscience. The substance dualist absolutely grants that matter can affect the mind. It does not follow that because matter affects the mind that the mind cannot exist without matter. That is a non-sequitur.
So I have not strawmanned Con. If anything I am being charitable with Con for if Con claims that the existence of consciousness is contingent on neuroscience, then that conclusion is a non-sequitur that does not follow from any evidence that we have at all.
Minds, humans and associations
“I'm claiming that intelligence is necessarily a property of neurological substrates, and that all evidence indicates that if these neurological substrates do not exist, then neither does consciousness, intention, or intelligence.”
If Con wants to make the above claim, that is fine. They are expected to prove their claim. Con has provided no evidence for the conclusion that all evidence proves that the mind can not exist if there is no neuroscience or a brain.
Question to Con: What evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt proves that the mind cannot exist without neuroscience?
Con has absolutely failed to provide any such evidence.
If anything, given the three points I provided above: the fallacy of association, correlation does not imply causation, and the interactionism of substance dualism; no evidence that Con will bring will prove his fourth point. But since Con has not provided any evidence for his claim that “the mind or consciousness will not exist if there is no neurological substrates”, and has absolutely failed to engage any of my three rebuttals, then this point has failed to support Con’s case.
>”Pro, can you explain how there would be a mind or mental concepts without a brain or neurological substrates?”
>”Pro can you show an example of intelligence that does not use or is not contingent on neurological substrates?”
Do I have to, Con? Given the complete lack of justification given for the fourth point, why is Con trying to reverse the burden of proof? Anyways, God would be an example of a disembodied mind that does not rely on neuroscience or a brain. A mind because he has intelligence and will. God is disembodied and immaterial as proven in the Kalam Argument.
I have a quick note to make to the readers and the voters.
Excellent debate so far. I now turn it back to Con for their final round of rebuttals.
 Quantum fluctuations do have a cause in the disturbances of the quantum field or the quantum vacuum energy
. So Con’s claim that quantum events provide a counterexample to the first premise of the kalam argument and so show that the universe could begin without a cause are false.
 Con can not appeal to the principle of parsimony not only because the conclusion of something beginning to exist without an external cause contradicts the rational proof given for the first premise of Kalam argument, but for a more important reason. If we seriously take the suggestion that the simplest explanation with the fewest entities is more likely, then we might as well posit solipsism as the most likely explanation. Positing that the virtual particle does not exist at all but rather just a part of our imagination posits less entities than either an uncaused virtual particle or a virtual particle with a cause. I doubt Con would like to adopt solipsism. Lastly, the principle of parsimony is heavily contested and lacks any sound arguments for its validity. In many cases in science, the more complex explanation turned out to be true.