It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Okay so first I wouldn't appeal to Rationalwiki for arguments. This isn't gish gallop. The argument is sound and simple but I will attempt to relieve you through elaboration. Dr. Craig offers a sound argument for God's existence but for those who can't refute it they will argue that Dr. Criag is simply a good debater and speaker and uses these skills to fool the masses. You're making an assumption that I am performing gish gallop but you don't know and that is the problem! To address your first objection we must use the Contingency argument. Because of limited space, I will put a video and simply lay out the premises of the argument: P1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. P2. If the Universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God. P3. The Universe Exists P4/Con. The explanation for the existence of the Universe is God. In other words, the Universe exists, therefore, God exists. To answer your objection based on the Law of the Conservation of matter. I would argue from interpretation. If a tree is turned into ashes it may still have the subatomic particles which make the Tree but it is starting a new beginning as ashes. On the Quantum Mechanics. I was able to find many sources covering this and I point the links in so that you can continue your research. To answer your question I quote Professor of Physics Dr. Mike Strauss. "Quantum Mechanics predicts thing precisely. It can predict things that bore out to the 10th decimal place calculations, the "lack" of causality in QM is because of not knowing how to interpret the wavefunction which results in multiple outcomes, all we can do know is measure such outcomes. Professor of Philosophy Dr. Edward Feser argues that those who believe that Quantum Mechanics violates causality fail to identify the distinction between empirical and philosophical claims, confuse what is really only one notion of causality with causality as such, and confuse mere illustrations or applications of general metaphysical principles with the principles themselves. MQ does not refute the KCA by no stretch of the imagination any sort of causality debunked here is determinism which leads to Free Will which has in itself become an argument for God's existence. On to objections to the second premise. The first statement is struck down by the 2 law of thermodynamics. Second, I quote Dr. Jeff Zweerink an astrophysicist who argues that the multiverse would support the Theistic view of causality. As it would only strengthen our teleological and design arguments for God's existence. He also argues that there is no scientific data to say that the multiverse exists but once again reaffirms that this doesn't get God out of the First cause picture. Your other statements either have been abandoned by scientists or have no scientific data to support them. On your final objections, the Contingency argument of Leibniz Cosmological argument will deal with the objections of the who designed the designer question and so on. Even though I do believe that I put videos already discussing this matter in the comment section. Okay so on to the Moral Argument. Your first objection relies on whether moral realism exists and whether moral relativism stands under scrutiny. To address these points would go past my typing limits and so I shall give you four videos to watch. Okay, so your minor points. Why would subatomic particles be able to pop into existence and not you and me or that rabbit across the street? There is precedence and I covered that in my first argument. Go and reread it. Once again the thing forming is the new beginning. You must define the difference between empirical and philosophical causality. For you two statements prior to the model point. Can you give the data? On what basis do you make that value judgement. Is it as evident as the multiverse is? Let me give you examples: The Steady State Model, The Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation model, Eternal Inflationary model, and the Quantum Gravity Models. On the name dropping. Dr. Craig is giving an example to show how his point is rational any person who is debating and is using sources that do not belong to them must participate in name-dropping otherwise they are a plagiarist. If you were talking to a person who did not believe in evolution would you not bring up Charles Darwin and his research? I discussed the multiverse already and how it works in favour of God. The simple logic of cause and effect would work for the MV like it does for us. No Scientists cannot if there is not enough information that is nonsensical. Here is m conclusion: My opponent is not well versed in the research that he conducts to refute my arguments and has made numerous claims that have been effectively refuted both by others and myself. My opponent is not able to refute my argument and thus must engage in hypotheticals in order to keep his debating dignity. Sources of which I have not already put into my rebuttal: https://strangenotions.com...