It is Probable That God Does Not Exist

Thank you for a well-thought out response Ninjakitty. I'd like to first note that my opponent did not really respond to any of my arguments, this may have been an accident but because of the lack of response to my original arguments I will not really have to answer my opponent's rebuttals and will head straight into rebuttals of my own. 1. The Aquinas Cosmological Argument My opponent brought up the Cosmological Argument in his first round of debating. This does not in my opinion further his side at all. The argument is that everything has a cause and if we channel back these causes to the beginning we are left with an uncaused causer or god. My first rebuttal is: why can't the uncaused causer be the laws of physics? This makes just as much if not more sense as a being which just exists and is not caused. Why would the being exist? It certainly is a much smaller leap of faith to say that a set of rather abstract laws existed before the Planck epoch than saying that a divine creator did. We have evidence that the Laws of physics exist, we know that they exist. We don't know that god exists. It makes much more sense to assume the thing which we know exists has existed forever than saying a thing for which we have no evidence has existed forever. So in other words, the Cosmological Argument is not in favor of religion generally, it can just as easily be used in support of atheism. "None of the arguments given (in fact, none at all that I am aware of) provide any explanation for the existence of physical laws." I could say the same thing about god. There is no convincing argument for how god exists which I have heard. On the other hand we can see physical laws, we have not and never will see any god. You must admit at some point that something exists without cause, what makes more sense: a god for which we have no evidence who has existed forever and for some inexplicable reason cares and loves you or a set of rather insignificant laws which allowed this universe to be formed? CONCLUSION: This argument could be more effectively applied to my position as there is evidence that my "god" (physical laws) exist whereas there is no evidence that any being exists. If you believe god can exist abstractly and without cause, you must doubly believe that physical laws can exist abstractly and without cause. 2. The Fine-Tuning Argument I will admit I have never found this argument particularly appealing. Life does not seem to be fine-tuned to me for several reasons. Firstly, we exist on this oblate spheroid in the middle of a tiny solar system nestled in the corner of a petty galaxy of which there are billions more. We exist in our solar system in the greatest cradle of life which we have ever discovered and even in this abundant cradle of being we live on a planet which can support life in some of it's places and of the life which it has supported more than 99.9%(1) of these species have since perished. The universe does not appear to be fine-tuned for life, it seems to very rarely support small patches of life in tiny solar systems. This universe is not fine-tuned, it is cruel and malevolent if anything. Secondly, if the universe seems fine-tuned for life it's because we are living. The universe could never not seem fine-tuned for life because if it was not fine-tuned for life there would be no consciousness there to perceive it. Thirdly, the universe likely would have seemed fine-tuned for life 200 years ago and then we learned of Evolution. It would seem more fine-tuned fifty years ago and then we learned more detailed and delicate explanations of the creations of the cosmos. In fifty more years the universe is going to seem even less fine tuned. Science makes things simpler. If you have based your argument upon how mysterious and fine-tuned the universe seems then your argument has been getting smaller and smaller for 10,000 years and will continue to get smaller until the end of human existence. CONCLUSION: As you can tell if you read my arguments, there is actually very little reason to believe that this universe is fine-tuned. It supports little life, what life it has supported is already 99.9% dead. The last thing I'll say is that you never really gave any attacks to my previous positions. I claimed that there was no evidence for a god and after reading your arguments I strongly maintain that position. Your first argument proves too general to provide evidence for a deity and your second argument seems to be an overly excited reaction to the fact that some paltry insignificant life exists on parts of this minuscule little planet. You never argued with me that a universe can come without a deity (which it can, see first argument). To be religious you must believe that god exists while not having a shred of evidence in support of this fact. It really is like believing in Santa Claus. Neither god nor Santa Claus are impossible, but are they probable in any sense of the word? No. Simply no. (1)-http://www.pbs.org...