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

I myself agree with the basic arguments of the cosmological argument. The universe did have a cause. This cause must have existed outside time, else it would require a cause itself or have to exist forever which we both agree is impossible. The cause would have to be an abstract object such as numbers or a personal mind.I do not see any justification for this assumption. The only requirement for this cause is that this cause exist outside time. Also pro is assuming the existence of the mind or some invisible thing that controls our bodies. However, with science we can see detect how different thoughts manifest themselves by making different parts of the brain active. Scientists know about different centers of the brain that deals with sight, emotion, and memory. Maybe everything in the mind is explained physically, or maybe there really is invisible spirit-stuff inside us, we don't know. There has just been no need to assume the existence of the mind yet.There may be a cause outside space-time that created the universe that is different than matter and energy, but is not a mind or a number. One cannot just rule this out. That is something scientists are looking into right now. They are trying to figure out what started the big bang. We know this cannot be true because out of nothing, nothing comes.That is interesting. In fact, if one tries to do something to nothing, they will never be able to transform nothing into something. This is actually an argument against God creating the universe out of nothing. Another problem is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So how do we get complexity from non-design processes? Isn't creating the fine-tuning of life impossible without design? Let me explain this by giving an example of an improbable event. Lets take the probability of flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times in a row.The probability this is 1/2^10 or 1/1024 or .098%. So the probability this won't happen is 1023/1024. So what if we try ten rounds of this? The probability that we will have at least one round in which we get heads in all ten flips is 1 - (1023/1024)^10 = .97%. What if we try 100 rounds? Now the probability is 9.3%. If we do this for 1000 rounds the probability of getting at least one round in which all ten flip is heads is 62.36%. 10000? 99.99%.So an unlikely event that is tried many different times, or has many different ways of happening can become possible or even likely. I call this the If an instructor asks her students to flip a coin 100 times and then turn in the results for credit, the students will most likely just make up their results because they are too lazy to flip a coin 100 times.Students will try to make their results look very random (e.g. htththhththt) and will actually make their results look too random with not enough lucky runs, and a good statistician can actually catch that. This is human nature. We under-appreciate how likely seemingly unlikely events are when we try them many times. This creates the illusion of design. So far this principal is very abstract but I will be using this principal to address my opponent's fine-tuning arguments. Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.Yes, if there is only one Big Bang, then it is likely that it would fail. The question is, how many Big Bangs have happened? Why assume it had only happened once? If it happened many times then we are bound to find a big bang that does succeed according to the imminent luck principal.Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.That again assumes that there was only one big bang. If there have been numerous big bangs then we are eventually going to end up with a universe suitable for life. And how are we defining life anyway? If a universe is unfit for earth-like life does not mean it is unfit for all possible life. Lets apply the imminent luck principal to the complexity of life.200 years ago scientists once thought that the complexity in life required a designer who created it. This universe has a vast number of planets, environments, forces, and patterns. So the probability that any given combination of these could produce the enormous complexity in life is pretty small. However, because there are so many combination of forces and enviornments in the universe, maybe at least one of them will be able to.In fact natural selection and mutations are two forces that combined will produce biological complexity. All life evolved from a common ancestor and the vast majority of its complexity is due to these two forces. Mutations will change the genetic code of a population over time, with some mutations being good, others being harmful, and still others being neutral. Over time natural seletion will weed out bad mutations and keep good mutations that improves the population over time. We have seen evolution in the lab, and have seen bacterial evolve to become resistant to drugs. We also have extensive fossil evidence for human evolution, whale evolution, bird evolution, land-animal evolution, and mammal evolution. If pro chooses to challenge the theory of evolution, I will go into much greater detail.We have even found that stars form from gas clouds that pull themselves together because of gravity. When stars die they create higher elements that are then pulled together to form planets around stars. These ideas have a lot of evidence and are common knowledge in cosmology. If pro wishes to challenge them I will happy to present the evidence.Over time we find that more and more things in nature are shown to have non-design explanations. Religious people once thought that Gods made volcanoes go off, created thunder and even made windy days. Now that more and more is being explained with science there is less and less for God to explain. Now God's domain has been pushed back to the origin of the big bang and the origin of the universe. If God is no longer the direct cause of the complexity of life even when life seems so fine-tuned and complex then how do we know God is the direct cause of the origin of life or even the origin of the universe just because some people choose to see "fine tuning" in these things?Over time the gaps for God to exist in are closing, and I predict that the gaps that pro is trying to explain with God are going to close and actually be explained with science. Why? Because this has happened so many times before. Lets not make the same mistakes our ancestors made.Next I want to point out that Con is specifically arguing for the Christian God. Even if a designer could be proven that would not prove the Christian God rather than Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, etc. The Christian God is based on what we see in the bible but the bible has many problems.For example, Jesus is supposed to have atoned for our sins by dying for us. However, how is it right for an innocent person to be punished for the sins of the guilty? If a criminal was about to be put to death for murder, would any judge allow the criminal's father to take his punishment for him? No! When you do something worthy of punishment it is you and you alone who must be punished. To punish someone else for your crimes is giving them what they don't deserve and is letting you off from what you do deserve.The Christian God is supposed to be omnibenevolent and just. It is more likely that such a God would never do the space-goating that was done in the new testament, so it is more likely that the Christian God does not exist. I apologise for the length of my post, I just needed some room to show how a universe without design is possible.