It is probable that God exists

I will as well, just for the sake of me holding the burden of proof. For the sake of this argument, God will be a deity who created the Universe. To say it specifically, we will be discussing the existence of a God. Hence, we can not CITE the Bible as it presupposes the existence of God. I repeat we will not be CITING the Bible! Now, if anyone during this debate, whether it be me or the opponent who fails his part in adhering to the rules, the opposing side will win. If both sides do break rules, the debate will result in a tie-regardless of what the votes say. Rules (Non-negotiable) - No ad hominems or name calling (I'd like to remain neutral on God and not call him names, for the sake of being civil): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. - No quitting rounds, you must stay for all rounds unless disturbed by outside relationships. ie: loss of a family member or loss of wifi. If this is the case then we will subject our debate into a further one, with all our arguments being copied and pasted of course. - No referring to the Bible. This is of course because the Bible presupposes the existence of God. - Be civil, especially in the comment section. Say a religious folk comes on, be respectful to them. If you don't, it proves their point even more - The exception being if they are especially rude. - No posting other sources as your "arguments", there is specifically a reason I gave the both of us 10,000 characters. Do not post youtube links to your way of thinking: summarize it here! The exception will be to post links you used of course. The following are requests and not rules, do not let them sway your vote - Please don't refer to God as anything negative. This is specifically because at times I can not even recognize if you are talking to God. ie: That stupid piece of filth --> God, just do it for the sake of clarification. - Listen, we are here for a Socratic discussion and to learn. I noticed that in previous arguments, you seemingly did not respond to another person's arguments. This will not bode well. Maybes: If you accept, we can do this like a parliamentary debate. On the burden of proof - This is solely on the positive assertion, which is on me. I have the burden of proof! If the oppponent feels I did not do enough on my part, I will not respond to it unless I see it as necessary. I feel that this is fair as he is not there to judge me, but others are, that is, of course, the purpose of others voting in this debate. Now onto my arguments! My first argument will be based upon Aquinas's cosmological arguments, which essentially state that in our universe, every effect has a cause, which in turn must be caused by yet another cause, and so forth. This chain of events cannot exist in and of itself, for if each event was caused, nothing would come into existence. The existence of such events must, therefore, be attributed to something that remains independent of the said system. According to Aquinas, this separate event is God. Now before you interject about the phenomena in Quantum physics where causes can, in fact, be caused by their own cause. It should, however, be noted that even in quantum mechanics, causality is still thought to be retained. The appearance of such matter spontaneously relies on the presence of quantum fields, which we have no explanation as to where they come from. Now that we can discount this, for the most part, Anselm's cosmological argument can now be applied because any origin theories rely on the laws of quantum physics themselves No argument proposed as of now can explain the laws of physics having a presupposition of the Universe. Because the universe itself cannot exist without these principles, the laws of physics are, in a sense, a part of the chain of causality, and must be explained. My opponent may once again interject with the idea of the big bang, but even so, we would still need to know the cause of the big bang and it'd therefore not disprove the existence of a deity. Now, one could assume that we would still need a cause. However, Aquinas's argument does not require God to have a cause. Rather, it only says that everything that exists in our physical universe must have some cause. Thus, God, as a being that by definition transcends the physical universe, does not necessarily have to have a beginning or a cause. He is outside the series of events and therefore is not bound by the laws which are a part of that series. My following argument for the existence of God will discuss how the Universe appears to be fine-tuned to allow for life to exist. It is here where I would like to make the interjection that I am not talking about the world being immoral but that life exists on the planet. To begin with, it seems that the Laws of Physics does not seem to a decree for why life exists in the first place. Everything from the amount of matter in the universe to the mass of leptons, if changed even slightly, would render life impossible. Therefore, the fine-tuning of our universe is almost undeniable. While it is difficult to determine the probability of such a universe coming about either by chance or by design, it is certain that it is much more likely that an intelligent designer would have made our universe than that it would come about by chance. Consider that a person who has lived independently of society found a watch, one where the piece had been designed for such a purpose to intertwine so well. Its symmetry and efficiency lead them to the conclusion that it is man-made. It is therefore highly improbable, that this object could occur in nature, and she is right to think so. Similarly, when faced with the complexity and apparent design in our universe, a philosophical tool called "inference to the best explanation" or "Occam's razor" says that we should assume that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator. This is known as the teleological argument. My next argument would come from one of the most influential philosophers and physicists of all time, Isaac Newton. I do not mean to make this an appeal to popularity, but only want to highlight his name because I think it is significant to know how he thought. Newton decreed that God existed based on multiple findings. Perhaps the most prominent being that he justified the idea of God is omnipresent. He said, "Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. .. .God is the same God, always and every where. I will now break this down into a premise to conclusion type of argument Every particle of space exists always, and every specific indivisible amount of time is everywhere. Hence, because nothing can be nowhere and everywhere, he is always and everywhere. The rest is unnecessary because it dives into virtue theory. My opponent will most likely bring up quantum fluctuations and free will, I will, therefore, like to refute it before it is even said (From older argument). Humans are wildly unpredictable beings. Hence, our actions have nothing to do with microscopic determinism. Quantum mechanics is governed by probability dynamics. The equation of quantum fluctuations does not in any way constitute exactness of the situation, but the probability. Essentially, they confirm that the violation of determinism is random. So, If human freedom to choose was simplified to quantum indeterminism, then we'd be saying that human choices are determined solely by chance. It's comparable to throwing a coin flip, we act accordingly off of that so it is determined by chance, not presupposed in any way. It is at this point that it does boil down to subjectivity and exactly why I did post definitions so we wouldn't meddle with semantics. If one considers an element of randomness to be sufficient enough to substitute as "free will" then they are free to choose so. However, there are, of course, already many factors to uncertainty, systems that are seemingly independent of quantum mechanics. Just one example is the microscopic atomic dynamic inside of everyone. It's influenced by everyday events (random) Also, consider the fact that quantum indeterminism disappears quickly when considering macroscopic objects. Consider the idea that it is room temperature where the thermal motion of molecules is random. The water that fills the molecules inside our brain will serve as a source of indeterminism for the simple idea of it being hot. This alone serves as a serves as a higher indeterminism than that of a quantum one. We can now conclude that free will and determinism cannot be satisfied via quantum physics, hence we are given the question: If there are influences (like macroscopic dynamics) that are subject to microscopic indeterminism (like the thermal one given above), then what exactly helps us determine how to judge free will? Hence, free will is a subjective matter. Thanks! My sources: [1] D'Souza, Dinesh. "What's So Great About Christianity? " pages 87-88 [2] . https://profmattstrassler.com... [3]. https://arxiv.org... [4]. http://crossexamined.org.... [5] . https://cosmosmagazine.com... [6] . https://phys.org... [7] . https://plato.stanford.edu... [8] . http://www.discovery.org... [9] . https://www.space.com... [10] . https://www.edge.org... [11] . https://rsc.byu.edu...