God probably exists

Thank you Con, glad to be here among you and Jesus. I will simply approach this like a Civil Lawsuit: I will make several arguments and see which one/s can make headway against Mr. Con. They are in no particular order and frankly I haven't given the matter much thought until today. 1/ Religion has been around for about 40,000 years of human history so 1/5 to perhaps as much as 1/2 of our history. Monotheism or single-god theism (sorry Catholics, scram!) is a relatively recent advent. By a simple argument of entropy, I would say that via evolution, religion itself is a higher function that other animals show no signs of possessing. This at the very least means it is a unique quality of people. That said, again via entropy it appears religion has moved from Animism (not to suggest it doesn't still exist) all the way to Monotheism. This cannot be argued in reverse as atheist religions such as animism predated even polytheist religions. It seems like probable that we are moving backward religiously than forward. ALL other animals are atheists... but ONLY people show signs of theism. We came FROM atheism, both as a race AND as individual babies. Atheism is the LACK OF god faith-it must be instructed. So who is more advanced? The dog? The babbling baby? Or the upstanding, evolved THEIST! The simple fact that we move TOWARD monotheism in our religious advancement, is indicative that we are on a path to a probable "God." 2/ Free Will is an illusion as demonstrated by any simple test. Perhaps that of Sam Harris-that you cannot stop yourself from thinking for even 30 seconds. This PROVES fatalism (from the person's perspective) PROVING our own minds are not even in our control. This alone proves SOMETHING outside us, above us, beyond us-controls everything, even our personal decisions. Otherwise-one could decide right now to stop thinking for 30 seconds. OR better yet, I challenge CON to PROVE IT, by CHOOSING to be THEIST for the first half of the next round... If he cannot, he proves through that failure that he does not, cannot rule his own life. Something else does. By definition-that thing via CON's definition MUST BE "God" as something is ruling the Universe, and we are not it, nor do we even control our own minds. That said-I've now proven half of his "God" definition, and the other half remains: If there is indeed a ruler of the Universe, be it chance, or Yhvh or pre-determinism... one thing is clear: It is indeed ruled down to your own mind-by an unseen force. This ruler of the Universe, this power in charge of everything-not allowing us to even control our own minds... must be the only logical, so of course most PROBABLE CAUSE OF the very universe it controls, and rules down to the mind of CON himself. 3/ seeds come from their creator in every other instance. What creates an acorn? It's parent, the tree. Same with people, and zygotes... same with the Universe. So regardless of if the singularity is a seed of a different color-one thing is for sure, it follows the seed-parent model. In this instance, control and creation appear to be CON's claimed foundation for what "God" is. Works for me, so essentially "God" is a controlling, authoritarian parent... or in Con's words, that seems most "probable." Everything has a parent and to some degree the parent (at least while the seed/child is in utero, etc.) has complete control over the offspring until they COME OUT... if the parent stops giving the ingredients of life, the seed dies (stops eating, stops breathing, etc.) That said, we MUST assume our singularity-came from something. That is, energy cannot be created or destroyed... so if we have no matter prior to the first event we're aware of-it had to come from something beyond our understanding, something with infinite energy beyond the laws of physics and this Universe. This is not a god of the gaps argument as much as a transfer of energy argument. 4/ Most gods have been scrapped, in favor an omnipotent god, like those of Abrahamics... the natural tendency toward this end in theism (toward an all powerful ruler, and therefore also with the potential for creation) is indicative again of the probability OF "God" especially by your definition which is mostly all inclusive in the first part-if this "God" is indeed all-powerful, obviously "God" is the ruler of the Universe, and even more likely it's creator. 5/ It is clear from the nature of reality, that whatever is behind the curtain is sadistic and cold... life appears to have no purpose at all, and at best it is simply to avoid suffering it appears. Only an all powerful and creating ruler could account for such a grandiose, flagrant mockery of humanity. Only a faith-based god could account for such perfect order yet chaotic evil in daily life and even at the scale of the Universe, or macroverses if you like.... (that presents more problems for me than CON I suppose-but not so much as while godS plural would exist (thus helping his argument - seemingly) it is clear he said "of the Universe" so each individual Universe would indeed still BE a monotheist version, thus CON can't get any help there either). In short, this argument essentially says there is too much order, too many patterns, yet too much antithetical chaos in addition-such a contradiction everywhere in reality suggests an equally contradictory explanation-GOD.