It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

"assembly of the LORD" in the verse he provided of Deuteronomy 23:2. Assembly is generally the term is used in Deuteronomy to refer to Israel gathered at Horeb/Sinai. It is still wrong to exclude people born of an inappropriate relationship because it is not their fault. Why does this verse say that their descendants were banned from assembly for ten generations? This indicates that this assembly is not a temporary thing but goes on for generations. I do not believe it is likely that there is more in existence than just this universe because we have no astrophysical or cosmological evidence to give even slight verification to such a claim. How likely is it that the phenomena that started the big bang happened only happened once? Whatever phenomena that caused the solar system and the sun to exist likely happened elsewhere and therefore people 1000 years ago should have been sure that our sun and our solar system are not the only ones. Natural phenomena almost never happens only once, and lets not make the same assumptions as our ancestors. It is more likely that the big bang happened more than once. So you cannot calculate the odds of a universe being fit for life because you don't know how many universes there are, I have already showed that this being would have to be personal, timeless, changeless, immaterial, and extremely powerful not because that is what I like to think but because it is logically necessary as I proved in round two. Ok then, lets see your arguments from round two. In quotes are your arguments from round two. "Therefore, if this being must exist outside of time and must also be changeless it must also be immaterial because material things are always changing at least on the atomical and molecular levels. " I have already refuted this argument. Matter in this universe changes because it exists within time. If it were outside time, it would not change so it could be changeless too. "This being must also be personal because personhood is implied by the timelessness and immaterialness of the cause. " if pro wants to rule out matter because it changes within time, then pro will have to rule out minds too because our minds are constantly changing all the time. Minds are not changeless or timeless so by your own reasoning a mind is not a candidate for the cause of the universe. Plus, how do you know that all things that are non-matter and outside time are minds? There are almost surely many things outside the universe we don't know anything about so how do we know none of them fit this description too? I am arguing it exist necessarily and logically. (See above) Above, pro assumes that the mind existed in the first place, that it is timeless and changeless, and that a mind is the only thing with these qualities. Possible for God to create out of nothing? Yes. For energy to appear from nothing by nothing I don't think is plausible. There is not evidence of there ever being another state before the big bang. There is also no evidence for the idea that the universe came from nothing by the hand of God so why does pro accept this idea, yet reject the idea of the universe forming from pre-exiting "material"? Energy cannot be created or destroyed so it makes more sense that the material in the universe existed in some form before the big bang. Again, I wouldn't say that it is luck that the cause contains these qualities, but rather out of necessity the being logically needs to possess these qualities. Pro seems to be saying that there logically needs to exist a being with the power of God even "before" the universe existed. Even if you could prove that God existed you cannot show that somehow this being must have to exist logically without cause. Then why not argue that the naturally created universe logically needs to possess the characteristics to support life? Dawkins even says that life seems to have been designed for a purpose (citation above). You are taking Dawkins out of context. He is addressing the illusion of design when really life was created by natural selection and mutations. I have read his books. My arguments for fine tuning does not try to explain the complexity of life, but rather the complexity of the initial conditions. My reasoning is not based on the design argument. It is based on the fact that non living matter cannot logically produce living matter. Leaving the best explanation of life to God. Sorry I misunderstood. Bacteria are really molecules arranged in such a way that they can replicate and use resources from outside them. Bacteria are created from physical materials during replication anyway so all we need is for bacteria to be created from non-living matter without replication. Obviously they would have to be far more simple that modern bacteria. Given the many different combinations of forces and environments in the universe we are bound to find at least some that can create life. People once said that it was impossible for the complexity of life, and stars and planets to be created without a designer. They said this because of the design argument and because they could not conceive how these things could be made naturally so they assumed these came about supernaturally. This is called the fallacy from ignorance, or the following statement; "I don't understand how life could come about without design so it couldn't have come about without design. " Lets not make the same mistake about the origin of life. If natural processes can create planets and the complexity of life then it is easily possible that they could produce the first replicating organisms on earth. Just because the universe seems fine tuned for life doesn't mean it was designed. The theory of evolution and the imminent luck argument both disprove that. This argument cannot be used because it has been shown to be wrong about the greatest complexity in the universe, the complexity of life. I wish my opponent had given me at least one argument against Gods existence to negate, but maybe he is saving it for the fifth round so that I can not refute it. This debate was about whether the Christian God likely exists or not. I have shown that the supposed nature of the Christian God is in contradiction with his supposed actions so this idea is in contradiction and is likely false. You have failed to present any evidence that the Christian God exists. Even if there is a 50% that a God exists, there is not a 100% change that this God is the Christian God so there is less than a 50% chance that a Christian God exists making his existence less probable than not existing. I have also shown that a designer is not necessary to explain complexity or anything else, but naturalistic explanations do this just fine. Therefore the design hypothesis adds unneeded complexity to our explanations and is unparsimonious or in other words it violates Occam's Razor. Because it is unparsimonious it is less likely than naturalistic explanations. God himself violates the design argument. The design hypothesis makes predictions that turn out to be wrong and people once thought that the stars, planets, complexity of life, and weather patterns were designed. Naturalistic explanations explain everything about our origins that we are able to explain. Naturalistic explanations have replaced design explanations over time making them more likely explanations for future mysteries. As the light of science explains more and more, theists have less and less to explain with design. What if theists tried to explain all the thing we don't understand about earth's weather with God? In the past, naturalistic explanations have done just fine explaining past mysteries so the God hypothesis is unecessary and unparsimonious and so is less likely to explain current mysteries than naturalistic explanations for weather.