God most likely exists

Rebuttals part 1. The rebuttals for the overviews are in the comments. 1. The Big Bang goes hand on hand with the Kalam arguments. If the Big Bang is true it makes it more probable. " Run the clock backwards to 13.8 billion years ago, and everything in the Cosmos started out as a single point in space. In an instant, everything expanded outward from that location, forming the energy, atoms and eventually the stars and galaxies we see today. But to call this concept merely a theory is to misjudge the overwhelming amount of evidence. There are separate lines of evidence, each of which independently points towards this as the origin story for our Universe. The first came with the amazing discovery that almost all galaxies are moving away from us. In 1912, Vesto Slipher calculated the speed and direction of "spiral nebulae" by measuring the change in the wavelengths of light coming from them. He realized that most of them were moving away from us. We now know these objects are galaxies, but a century ago astronomers thought these vast collections of stars might actually be within the Milky Way. A cluster of galaxies as seen from the Hubble Space Telescope A cluster of galaxies as seen from the Hubble Space Telescope In 1924, Edwin A cluster of galaxies as seen from the Hubble Space Telescope In 1924, Edwin Hubble figured out that these galaxies are actually outside the Milky Way. He observed a special type of variable star that has a direct relationship between its energy output and the time it takes to pulse in brightness. By finding these variable stars in other galaxies, he was able to calculate how far away they were. Hubble discovered that all these galaxies are outside our own Milky Way, millions of light-years away. So, if these galaxies are far, far away, and moving quickly away from us, this suggests that the entire Universe must have been located in a single point billions of years ago. The second line of evidence came from the abundance of elements we see around us. In the earliest moments after the Big Bang, there was nothing more than hydrogen compressed into a tiny volume, with crazy high heat and pressure. The entire Universe was acting like the core of a star, fusing hydrogen into helium and other elements. This is known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. As astronomers look out into the Universe and measure the ratios of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements, they exactly match what you would expect to find if the entire Universe was once a really big star. Another evidence: cosmic microwave background radiation. In the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a 6-meter radio telescope, and discovered a background radio emission that was coming from every direction in the sky " day or night. From what they could tell, the entire sky measured a few degrees above absolute zero. WMAP data of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Credit: NASA WMAP data of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Credit: NASA Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today. The final line of evidence is the formation of galaxies and the large scale structure of the cosmos. About 10,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled to the point that the gravitational attraction of matter was the dominant form of energy density in the Universe. This mass was able to collect together into the first stars, galaxies and eventually the large scale structures we see across the Universe today. These are known as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang Theory. Four independent lines of evidence that build up one of the most influential and well-supported theories in all of cosmology. But there are more lines of evidence. There are fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, we don"t see any stars older than 13.8 billion years, the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy, along with how the light curves from distant supernovae." So, this proves the universe had a beginning and a cause E.G God. He expanded the first particle creating the universe. If the Kalam argument and big bang isn't true then tell us how exactly the universe started. 2. Weak rebuttal. If the universe was created by chance what's the chances that God was created? To be continued.... 3. I'll just explain it in more depth "Axiom : If is good, and forces (that is, it's necessarily true that anything with property has property ), then is also good. "Axiom : For every property , exactly one of and is good. (If is good, we may as well say that is bad.) "Theorem (Good Things Happen): If is good, then it's possible that something exists with property . Proof of Theorem : Suppose were good, but necessarily nothing had property . Then property would, vacuously, force every other property; in particular would force . By Axiom , this would mean that was also good; but this would then contradict Axiom . "Definition : We call a thing godlike when it has every good property. "Axiom : Being godlike is good. "Theorem (No Atheism): It's possible that something godlike exists. Proof of Theorem : This follows directly from Theorem applied to Axiom . "Definition : We call property the essence of a thing when (1) has property , and (2) property forces every property of . "Axiom : If is good, then is necessarily good. "Theorem (God Has No Hair): If a thing is godlike, then being godlike is its essence. Proof of Theorem : First note that if is godlike, it has all good properties (by definition) and no bad properties (by Axiom ). So any property that a godlike thing has is good, and is therefore necessarily good (by Axiom ), and is therefore necessarily possessed by anything godlike. "Definition : We call a thing indispensable when something with its essence (if it has an essence) must exist. "Axiom : Being indispensable is good. "Theorem (Yes, Virginia): Something godlike necessarily exists. Proof of Theorem : If something is godlike, it has every good property by definition. In particular, it's indispensable, since that's a good property (by Axiom ); so by definition something with its essence, which is just "being godlike" (by Theorem ), must exist. In other words, if something godlike exists, then it's necessary for something godlike to exist. And by the second theorem it is possible. Sources http://math.stackexchange.com... http://www.google.com... I'll post more rebuttals and arguments next round right now my Wi-Fi is going hay wire