There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

First, let me address inaccuracies on Con's part: Well, guess what else is "at" the beginning of the universe? You guessed it: the universe is at the beginning of the universe. According to the Standard Model of Cosmology, there was no universe. There was no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no quantum fluctuations . .. nothing. ro, if you think science is worthy of a "bashing", then perhaps you should refrain from attempting to back up your arguments with science. The fallacies of science is not the purpose of this debate, but I did not say it was incapable of great things. . .. use science to provide an explanation (i. e. God) for why the universe exists? I used many things. Science was one of them. Deductive reasoning is not the same as science. the recorded observation of quantum fluctuations Quantum fluctuations have not been recorded nor observed. This statement is false. But can Pro point to any recorded and reproducible observations of God? He is left with anecdotes only. Nor is it required of me. This is an argument based on deductive reasoning (i. e. ruling out all other possibilities). and he would also know that it is absolutely possible for a universe to exist without asymmetry[1] You read your source wrong. It says nothing about lack of asymmetry. If Krauss [2] is not worthy of citation. .. Bias sources are not worth citation, and I showed his bias in round 2 when he used personal attacks at his own lecture. reationists who in 2010 received the unfortunately-named degree of "Bachelor of Science in Religion" and who have published not more than one paper This statement shows a bias on Con's part toward his own views rather than on factual materials. I didn't draw upon his conclusions. I used his numbers. These numbers are well established in the Standard Models of Particle Physics and the SM of Cosmology. Again, numbers are objective, and they were all in one place. SUMMERY This is a very complicated issue. The Universe, as it turns out, is more complicated than we could have ever known. So much as 50 years ago, science and God were incompatible. While those like Krauss, Hawking, and Penrose himself (as heavily as I used him), rely on old, bitter rivalries to drive their theoretical physics. That can be another debate entirely. Where I'm going, though, and I can understand Con's conntention, but it comes 50 years late. The pieces have come together where we can put together observations to conclude with phenomenal confidence that we live in a fine tuned universe within constraints so tight that ANY change almost certainly results in no universe. The arguments above, most even on an individual level, show the extreme probability (generously speaking) of God's existence. It's certainly above the 50% mark as far as numbers go. Con has failed to debunk these arguments other than peck away at the sources (rather than source material) About all of the talking points: IMPOSSIBILITY OF NO GOD: Con pecked at the sources of information, but didn't touch the actual source material except for to call it "unreliable" (how? ). Con's contention that Standard Model of Cosmology and SM of Particle Physics numbers being inaccurate is denying much progress made by scientific observations made in the last century. Since the argument holds up by the numbers of world renounded physicists, mathematicians, and the Standard Models, this is clearly a valid argument for the existence of God. MULTIPLE WITNESSES: His demeaning attitude toward people and their ability to sense the world is overshadowed by the fact that there are no examples of mass deception of the kind and in the numbers he assumes relates to God. Ancient peoples knew of very little, but they did know of three major things: The sun rises during the day Most of the time, the moon appears at night There is a creator of this World (which can translate to the Universe, since Earth was their universe at the time). Since people do not lie as a complete people, it's valid to say that there's at least a 51% chance that the people are right. After all, if 50% of what we see isn't real, then many of us might not be alive! PERSISTENCE: Con's request for evidence was already covered in the source material. The source material provided was never refuted or used as a counter argument. What remains is the error in position assumption that the laws of physics would change in the absence of God. CAUSALITY: Con assumes, the value t as in time can be in the negative with God beginning to exist. This is simply not possible in a cause-effect chain. In a cause-effect chain, there is one initiator, and that initiator cannot be caused. The fact that the Universe must have been caused combined with other arguments (all you need is one) shows that this is also a valid argument for the Universe as God's creation. IN SHORT Con has failed to debunk any of the arguments provided. He has misplaced, misused, and at times insulted the sources with absolutely no attacks on the source material. Few of the provided sources did anything to advance his counter arguments. Two of them propose a universe from nothing, something I never disputed (God can still exist in nothing because he does not require space, time, matter, energy. Oh, by the way, I like Michio Kaku). One of the sources was one I provided already (sentinels), and one was misread and misrepresented (baryon asymmetry wiki). I'd also like to point out Con's overall bias demenor toward people who love God, his multiple uses of the word "creationist," and talking about an "unfortunately-named" degree in religion. He refers to my argument of accounts of God by people as "scraping at the bottom of the barrel" despite the fact that our very historical records depend, sometimes exclusively, on the written and verbal accounts of others. keep in mind that if any of these arguments shows God to be favorable to no God over 49.9%, then that shows that there is a logical argument for God's existence at least as much as there is one for no God.