God most likely exists

Full resolution: The Christian God is most likely real. Before I begin I'd like to thank Tejretics for instigating and accepting this debate. Format: R1 Pro gives opening statement\argument and definitions. Con challenges Pro. R2 Pro and Con give Arguments R2 Pro and Con give more arguments and rebuttals. R3 Pro and Con give more arguments and rebuttals. R4 Pro gives Rebuttals and Constructive criticism and closing statements. Con gives Rebuttals and Constructive Criticism and closing statements *Clarifications* 1.Votes may not be plagiarized. 2.Nether Pro or Con promotes Plagiarism. 3.Pro or Con cannot copy his whole debate from one debate only, and his whole arguments cannot be 100% plagiarism. 4. The BoP is shared. 5. Trolling and forfeiting from both debaters should not be tolerated My arguments: " The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists." I'll explain the first points. " Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician. And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time? No" Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise"If something begins to exist, it must have a cause. But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all." First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy" and that's the point. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning. This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries" In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe. Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lema"tre, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding. Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery"almost beyond comprehension. However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe" So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time. More recently, three leading cosmologists"Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin"proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing. This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model. It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true"the universe has a cause. And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like" God. The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist." " Teleological argument This is an argument that uses abductive reasoning, viz. an appeal to best explanation from observation of a given phenomenon. For this argument, I observe the phenomenon of the universe having the exact properties that entail the existence of complex life, and seek to postulate the most probable explanation for this phenomenon. For characters' sake, I will refer to the 'universe having the exact properties to entail complex life' as an 'LPU' (life permitting universe). But note that I am specifically referring to complex life, the likes of mammals, reptiles, birds and so on - including humanity. Observation: The universe is an LPU. This is uncontroversial, we can observe empirically that complex life exists, and hence the universe permits it. From this observation, we have multiple possible abductions we could make: 1. The universe is an LPU by chance 2. The universe is an LPU because it is necessarily so, viz. it could not have failed to be an LPU 3. The universe is an LPU because it was designed to be an LPU The first two abductions are naturalistic, the last is deistic. Now, we must address the relative probabilities of the three potential explanations. 1 - Chance This explanation is by far the most improbable. The maximum deviations of any of the main universal constants are as follows: Ratio of Electrons to Protons- 1:10^37 Ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity- 1:10^40 Expansion Rate of Universe- 1:10^55 Mass Density of Universe- 1:10^59 Cosmological Constant- 1:10^120 (1) If any of these constants deviated by more than their above values, then the universe would either be unable to form stars, be unable to form complex-life-permitting stars (LPS) or be unable to form galaxies. (2) Just to give an idea of the huge improbabilities of even the most flexible of the above constants (1:10^37), I will quote Dr. Hugh Ross, a doctor of Astrophysics: 'One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37' (3) But the probability of the universe being an LPU by chance is even more unlikely than 1 in10^37. If even one of the above constants deviated more than its maximum deviation then the universe would not be an LPU. So, in reality, the probability of the universe having the exact constants is: (1/10^37) x (1/10^40) x (1/10^55) x (1/10^59) x (1/10^120) = 1/10^311 Which is an unimaginable tiny number. At this level, the probability is effectively 0. 2 - Necessity Whilst this is an explanation that would explain why the universe is an LPU, we can reason that the universe is not necessarily an LPU. This is because, in a modal sense, X is necessarily Y if and only if it is absurd or incoherent to postulate that there is a possible world where X =/= Y. But it is not absurd to postulate a possible world where the universe is not an LPU, so the universe is not necessarily an LPU." 3- Design. Out of the three this seems most likely. Godelian Ontological Argument I will be defending the ontological argument of Kurt von Godel. D1) A "positive property," hereby +P, is a property that does not lessen the excellence of an entity, but whose negation lessens the excellence of an entity D2) Something has necessary existence of it is not contingent on anything else D3) A property is strongly positive if []+P P1) If 'A' is any strongly positive property, then, necessarily, there exists a being that both exists necessarily and essentially possesses 'A'. This is because necessity itself is strongly positive. If []A, then A is separate from the universe, thus has to possess omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, which are strongly positive. Thus, if []+P, then []A has []+P. P2) The properties of omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection are strongly positive properties. Godelian ontological positivity refers to being "positive" in fields of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection. Thus, these properties are +P. They are also []+P because otherwise they are bound by logic, which *is* all ontological constraint. P3) To possess a conjunct of strongly positive properties is a strongly positive property. This doesn't commit fallacy of composition since positivity is transferable by Godelian definition of positivity. Links: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... http://www.reasonablefaith.org... Thank you so much , Tejretics and Pilocat for allowing me to use the arguments they have made for this debate. Onto Con.