Is it likely that God exists.

I would like everyone to notice that my opponent keeps making the same points. He has brought no new evidence in the second or third round.First argument he states is the fine tuning argument. The universe is fine tuned for the existence of life. If we assume that the reason that the universe exists is so that it supports life then yes the fine tuning argument would apply. However there is no reason to make such an assumption. If we assume that life is just an accident and in fact if we look at the universe and how life vast it is, it is pretty easy to assume that life formed by chance. Could've happened anywhere else or nowhere at all. God and life are not dependent on each.The fine tuning argument says that the laws of physics are so fine tuned to support life that a designer must have fine tune them. However current scientific evidence suggests that the first life on Earth emerged 3 billion years ago and the universe is about 14 billion years old. So going by theist logic the universe was not fine tuned for 11 billion years. God did not exist for 11 billion years then suddenly "pop" magically appears as first life form pops into existence. Of course this form of reasoning might sound stupid for my opponent but then again his form of reasoning sound irrational to me also.The chance of the universal constants being the way they are, are astronomically small. I'll grant you that. However certain constants are interlinked which decreases the amount of possible ways in which a universe can be formed. For example you can't have a universe with a high expansion and a high gravitational constant. The electromagnetic force could be linked to the speed of light. There are possibly more constants that are also linked in such a way which brings the number of possible combinations of constants down.The fine tuning argument also assumes purpose to our lives. They claim that a designer designed the universe for them. But what makes you objectively more important than the moon for example? Lastly my opponent states that if the multiverse exists then it would also have to be fine tuned however he has no basis for such a claim. At one point he stages that with the string theory you only get 1^500 (That's equal to one by the way. I'm pretty sure you meant 1x10^500). However I have failed to find any source which states that you only get this amount of universes with the string theory. I would like you to provide me with this source otherwise I will treat it as a made up number. The find tuning argument is dishonest because it claims itself to be a "scientific proof of God" However there is nothing scientific about jumping "something appears to be fine tuning the universe" to "therefore it must be a spaceless timeless immaterial rational and personal being. Making such a leap is irrational at least.Before I leave the topic of fine tuning let me quote Douglas Adams" Imagine a PUDDLE waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting HOLE I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it"This to me sounds exactly like"Imagine a MAN waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting UNIVERSE I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it"The second point that my opponent makes is the Uncaused Cause. However as I have pointed out this is a flawed argument as it is not supported by observations. As I have already explained Premise 1 is flawed. The argument itself claims to know the answer to what the actual cause is. This is a bit like saying "the wind is caused by something so that cause must be God. Similarly saying " the universe had a cause therefore it must be God" is making an unsubstantiated claims.My opponent claims that I have to prove that it's impossible for a spaceless timeless and immaterial being to exist. Let me quote my opponent."Your objection is merely an unjustified assumption that timeless spaceless beings are IMPOSSIBLE, a claim you have provided sans evidence."However I have never stated that it's impossible for a spaceless timeless and immaterial being to exist. In fact this is what I said." How can a spaceless timeless and immaterial being exist? To convince me a theist would have to present to me physical evidence that something spaceless timeless and immaterial can exist."The Burden of Proof does lie on the person making a claim that a spaceless timeless and immaterial being can exist. Until they find such evidence the argument will remain an argument from ignorance.Now that I have done refuting both points let's go back in time. We must remember that the Bible was written by people who didn't know that disease was caused by bacteria. The Quran was written by people who didn't know the Earth was orbiting the Sun. Religion was invented by people who didn't know how rain is formed. And so they shoved in God as an explanation for those natural occurring phenomena. And of course they were wrong. How could they be right? In fact these people would be useless as scientists today as their explanations were based on ignorance rather than evidence. In a contest between science and religion, science will always win. In science we use evidence to draw our conclusions. In religion we draw conclusions and try to find evidence that supports our conclusion. This is why religion is flawed. We can use this technique to prove anything. In fact let me demonstrate.Conclusion: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.Now what evidence suggests that-Planets are shaped like meatballs-Our chromosomes and hair are shaped like Spaghetti-When something gets sucked in by a black hole it gets stretched out. This is called spaghetification and this is how The flying Spaghetti Monster reveals how powerful he is.-The universe is fine tuned for the existence of pasta.It is really that easy. And therefore religion will never win against science. Science is not based on opinions and feelings. It is true no matter what you believe. Scientists will change the explanation for natural occurring phenomena if new evidence arises. For example scientists used to believe that the sun was orbiting the Earth however now we know that it's the other way around because of evidence presented. Theism has already jumped to a conclusion. God is always the explanation. Over 40% of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true. And if the evidence was different the Bible would still be true because it will pretend to be true. Creationists will always find scientific discoveries that just so happen to agree with the Bible while dismiss the parts that don't agree with it. If for example there was undeniable proof that the universe was caused by cheese, theists would still claim that this is what the Bible said all along. Cheese would be the all powerful God. "But the Bible said that man was created in God's image... no no that's just a metaphor".So let me briefly sum my point up. Science draws conclusions from evidence they find. Theists try to find evidence that proves the conclusions they draw while dismiss the evidence the disproves their conclusion.