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

It has been very fun. Either way we have not heard a reason why God does not existI only have to show that it is more likely that he does not exist. (ESV) Both these passages are just saying human experience confirms that immoral behavior on the part of parents results in suffering for their children and grandchildren. No, they are saying that God is visiting the iniquities of the parents onto the children. it is God who is doing the acting. There are examples in the bible of generational punishment being carried out: Deuteronomy 23: 2 No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation. When Pharaoh would not let the Israelites leave Egypt, why did God oppress ordinary Egyptian citizens for the crimes of their king? God killed their livestock, gave them boils, killed their crops with locusts, and killed their firstborn children because their king was stubborn. A just God would have only punished Pharaoh for his stubbornness. It is wrong to punish an innocent person for the crimes of the guilty because the innocent person did not commit those crimes. This runs against the whole idea of justice. This is logically incoherent because the universe includes all matter, space, time and energy. Therefore, to say that matter can exist outside of time (the universe) it is a contradiction. The universe is the particular bubble of space-time we are in. Pro's argument assumes that this is the only bubble of space-time with matter in existence. Surely even pro believes that there is more in existence than just this universe. I am proposing that this personal, timeless, changeless, immaterial, moral being is unlike anything in our universe. If pro is not arguing for the Christian God I don't see any reason to suspect that this creator is moral. If pro is, then see the above verses I presented to show that God is not just. Pro can propose all the things he likes but he does not know about every kind of thing that exists outside space-time and so cannot know that a mind is the thing that can create a universe. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails to prove that God exists. I do not see how this affects any of my claims. Please explain and I will be more than happy to discuss this. You said: "This being must also be personal because personhood is implied by the timelessness and immaterialness of the cause. "My problem with this is that we don't have any evidence for the existence of the mind, an unembodied mind, or a timeless mind. If the fact that the cause of the universe is timeless implies that it is a mind, then therefore a property of the mind is timelessness. This has not been demonstrated in any way. As I already stated this being that created the universe would necessarily be more powerful than what we could imagine. I believe that this is more plausible than the universe coming from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. If this is true, then pro is admitting that it is possible to create energy out of nothing. I have never argued that the universe came from nothing. It could have been transformed from another state. So you are saying essentially . .. that you really don't know what created the universe because we don't have enough evidence to decide. If this is the case and you don't give any evidence to show that it is more probable that God does not exist. .. I will freely admit that I don't know exactly how the universe was started for sure because our scientific knowledge has not reached that point yet. Let me give you some things which we can explain: volcanic eruptions, weather patterns, how the brain works, thunder, the complexity of life, and the origin of planets an stars. Here are some things that we have not yet explained: The cause of the big bang and the origin of life. A long time ago, theists thought that all of these were explained by Gods because they did not have any scientific explanation for them so they filled these unknowns with Gods. Whenever the light of science has touched any of these areas they have been shown to have non-design explanations. The God prediction has been shown to be wrong when it comes to the complexity of life, and the origin of the stars and planets demonstrating its awful predictive power. Non-design explanations have shown to explain more and more of the unknown so if I were asked whether design or non-design more likely explains things that are currently mysteries, I would have to opt for the non-design explanations. So we can still make a probability judgment even when we don't know exactly what started the universe, however we just can't be completely sure. Con seems to be arguing that a multiverse exist even though there has been no scientific evidence to suggest one could even possibly exist. There is no scientific evidence either way. To be sure that there is just one universe, or that there are multiple universes are both assumptions. All I am pointing out is that as long as multiple universes are possible, pro cannot assume there is only one universe, and so cannot calculate the odds that at least one universe is right for life. For the purpose of this debate I concede the evolutionary process. I already said I have no problem with it happening. But evolution does not say how nonliving material came to make living material which is the real matter (no pun intended) at hand. That is true, but what I am saying is that evolution showed how the greatest fine-tuning in the universe, the complexity of life is actually explained through natural processes. This shows that the design argument (complexity indicates design) is a failure because natural explanations have been shown to be very viable for even the greatest complexity and fine-tuning. Just because people were wrong then does not mean my evidences are wrong now, or even that it is probable my evidences are wrong now. I showed that it is more probable that God made the first living organism than that it came from non living material. People were wrong in the past when they assumed that God directly created the complexity of life because they assumed that complexity means design. It seemed unlikely that complexity could be produced by chance, but I have shown that seemingly unlikely events can become likely if there are many ways to do them and they are tried many times. I will call this argument the imminent luck argument. This argument shows that complexity does not necessarily mean design so this argument is stronger than the design argument. Pro is likely wrong like the creationists of the 19th century because he is using the exact same argument they did, the design argument, which has a track record of not working. Pro cannot say that it is more probably that God made the first living organism because this reasoning is based on the design argument, and the design argument has been refuted. What I have shown is that design is not necessary for complexity because we have seen many instances where great amounts of complexity have been produced through natural processes, and the imminent luck argument shows the flawed reasoning of the design argument. So we cannot infer design in the origin of the universe or the origin of life. The design hypothesis also violates Occam's Razor because it needlessly adds complexity to our explanations. To suppose the existence of an invisible person who exists outside time who made our universe, is a clear violation because such an explanation isn't necessary when natural processes can account for complexity just fine. Because the design inference violates Occam's razor it is less likely than non-design explanations. Anyway, what are the chances that existence is lucky enough to contain a powerful, intelligent mind existing timelessly without cause? Isn't this itself a violation of the design argument and Occam's razor at the same time?