"Does philosophy and science work together to offer compelling evidence for the existence of God?"

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. I will be playing devil's advocate for this debate because I am on Pro's side. But that doesn't mean I plan to make it easy for Pro to win. I plan to be difficult.In the first paragraph, Pro argues that an infinite number of past events leads to absurdity, so there has to be a finite number of past events, so the universe must have a first event, so the universe came into existence from nothing, so the universe must have a creator.There are problems with just about every step. First, there can be an infinite number of events since any finite interval can be divided infinitely, and each division can be considered an event. Second, even if there was a first event, it doesn't follow that the universe came into existence from nothing. The fact that there's a first event just means if you go backward in time, there's an end to it. But at the end, the universe exists. At the earliest moment of time, the universe exists. There could not have been a prior moment of time in which the universe didn't exist because there was no prior, so the universe could not have come into existence from nothing. Third, even if the universe did come into existence from nothing, that doesn't mean it has a creator. It could've come into existence spontaneously. After all, we already know that virtual particles spontaneously pop in and out of existence without sufficient causes. So why couldn't the universe?In the next few paragraphs, Pro appears to be combining two different arguments--the argument for a beginning of the universe from low entropy, and the argument from fine-tuning. Both arguments can be answered with one response. All we have information about is the observable universe, but there is no reason to think what we observe is all that exists. There could be an infinite sea of quantum fields that has existed for infinite time. If that is the case, then of course the whole thing will be at thermodynamic equilibrium, but chance alone is sufficient to explain our universe because our universe would then just be a localized spontaneous emergence of low entropy. There is always a probability of a low entropy state emerging from a sea of high entropy, so given enough space and time, it's inevitable that something like our universe would emerge.Finally, Pro says that since the universe was caused to come into existence, the cause must be something outside of the universe. And since it's something outside the universe, it must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and conscious.It's understandable why he'd say spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, since the universe just is space, time, and matter/energy. But where does he get consciousness? That's just an unproven inference he throws in there.Even if we grant that the cause of the universe is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, that only tells us what the cause is not. It doesn't tell us what the cause is. Pro needs to show tha the cause is God, but he hasn't done that. He's only told us what the cause is not. The cause is not something that is temporal, spacial, or material. That's all we can know.But there are seriously problems in postulating something outside of the universe anyway. The notion is incoherent. Take anything we know to exist, let's say a rock. Now imagine the rock exists for shorter and shorter intervals of time. Instead of existing for a year, it exists for a minute. Or a second, or half a second, etc. At the same time, imagine the rock as smaller and smaller. As the rock approaches zero time and zero volume, it also approaches zero matter. What would happen if it actually reached zero time, space, and matter? Well, obviously, it would no longer exist. A rock that doesn't exist in time, space, or matter is a rock that doesn't exist and never did exist.In the same way, if something is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, then it doesn't exist. And if it doesn't exist, then it can't cause anything.But even if there were such a thing as a spaceless, timeless, immaterial something or other that exists outside the universe, it couldn't have possibly caused the universe to come into existence since it would have no causal powers at all. There would be no way for it to interact with the physical world since it has no physical properties. It cannot act because it's timeless. It cannot impart energy to the universe because it has no energy to impart. There is absolutely no mechanism by which it could create the universe or cause anything in the physical world at all.At the end, Pro anticipates one of my objections by saying that when something comes out of the vacuum, it does not come from nothing. But I didn't say virtual particles came into existence from nothing, only that they came into existence without sufficient causes. They are spontaneous. If something can come into existence spontaneous, then it doesn't require a cause. So it could be that the universe came into existence without a cause.