God exists

Hopefully we both make good arguments. I mainly took up this debate to see if I have improved in God debates. This is copied from an earlier debate you had with Leaning. Would like a reason why. A statistical impossibility is anything that is less than one part in 10^50. One part in 1010^123 is one trillion trillion trillion times smaller than that. Even if I agree with you. At best you can only say God probably exists. The difference between God existing is that it exists which is not probable. Subpoint B. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Clarendon Press, 2014. Still a probability argument. I have already stated why this is a bad argument. Even if it is probable that God exists the right answer could still be God does not exist. Something more concrete is required rather than it is probable. If he is correct At least we agree that at best this would be an educated guess. subpoint A objective morality suggests the existence of God. Some things in this world are good, Some are evil. If objective moral reality exists, Then moral law exists, If moral law exists then we must posit the existence of an objective moral lawgiver. Neither the individual, Society, Or nature has the capacity to bestow upon anything moral objectivity. So many if's. How do you know there is good and bad in the world? Is this assertion true? You have objective morality due to having a set of ideas with a God enforcing it. This would be a might makes right argument. If we took God out of the ideas then we can actually assess whether an idea is good or bad. Turns out having slaves is a bad idea. Yes I am assuming you are talking about Christianity if you are not then with a God requires to know which one it is. So it is only fair to select one. Subpoint B The Aristotelian unmoved mover suggests the existence of God. No matter can justify its own existence. So God did have a creator? No matter can justify its own existence yet God exists without a matter to justify its own existence. Everything that exists has something with the causal power to bring it into existence. Are you making the claim that God does not exist? Quite ironic since you are Pro for God's existence. If you are not making that argument where did God come from? Everything that is, Except for the first cause. The very first thing to ever cause a reaction must be primordial. Really? No evidence has been given for this assertion yet you claim this. As far as we know something comes from something. We have not perceived something coming nothing. Which is a leap by itself but another leap is to say God just existed without a cause. If not What created God? To deny this fact places the timeline into a state of infinite regression which makes no mathematical or logical sense. IE what caused that? Then what caused that? Etc. Great job pointing out the flaws in your own logic. Why does God not fall into line with everything having a cause? Subpoint C Pascals wager. The following isn't necessarily a proof for god but rather a defense of Theism. Which is why it shouldn't even be used in a God debate. Pascals wager states that it is a wiser logical choice to believe in god for the following reason: If I choose to believe in god then one of two things can happen 1. I'm right and I get to go to heaven. 2. I'm wrong and nothing happens. On the other hand, If I choose to not believe in God one of two things can happen: 1. I'm right and nothing happens. 2. I'm wrong and I go to Hell. It's clear that the first option is the better choice because there is no room for something horrifically bad to happen which is not true of the second choice. It is a probability argument but with more flaws. What God is in number 1. Does Pascal wager need to be increased to fit all the other God's. Lets extend 1 to 5. 2 can be 6. 1 for I am right nothing can happen can be 7 and 2 I am going to hell can be 8-12. Meaning just be adding 5 more God's this argument becomes even more far fetched. What I did was fair because not everyone follows or believes in the same God which is why Pascals wager needs to be increased. I increased it by 5 but I am sure it can be increased even more which reduces the probability of a person following the right strand of God. Bearing in mind this is only a probability argument which cannot prove the existence of God. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Did you miss out part of your reason here? I'll take what understand from this statement. Isn't God complex? Surely God must also have a creator? As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, This would be an argument of authority but since I highly doubt you are a scientist in Cosmology I will let that slide. What I do have a problem is that you are only quoting him. Where is his science papers? Surely you can point to the one he came to this conclusion. Fred Hoyle as far as researching about him is that he is an astronomer. Same problem I had with Meyer I have with you using Fred Hoyle. A qualified astronomer does not make him qualified in cosmologist. The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Lets say I agree with you, This is not evidence to point to a designer. If it is then I can say what created God? Stephen C. Meyer I am not taking advice about biology from a non-biologist. Holding a degree in physics and geology does not mean you are qualified in discussing biology. Sure Meyer can have an opinion but it is not a professional/educated opinion that I would consider credible. They conclude that such structures were designed. Problem is both are talking about field they are not qualified in. You using them states the lack of thinking you used when picking people who aren't qualified in the field that they are speaking about. Increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design. Well they would be considered pseudo scientists. Science is observing the natural world. God is not part of the natural world. If and when we have more concrete evidence for God. We require a different tool to assess its credibility. Lets call it pience. Scientists if observes what is not natural and uses it to make a scientific claim is a pseudo scientist. Your burden of proof has not been fulfilled which is why I am not going to give my arguments. I await your response.