It is probable that God exists

I. The KCA "P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause" For the sake of argument, let us assume this is true for the moment as you are specifically applying this for P2. " P2. The Universe began to exist" I would offer two modifications to this statement: "The Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago" The premise of this statement made in the KCA is still the same. To make any statements about what was before the Big Bang is purely conjecture however. "Our prospects for finding out, furthermore, are quite dim, as " by its very nature " practically every model of cosmic inflation wipes out any information about the Universe that existed prior" and our Universe began."[6] The models most scientist accept concerning the Big Bang leave no clues to find out what happened before inflation ended. Scientifically you cannot say whether what was before this point (or before the Big Bang), began to exist or not. Did what was before "begin to exist?" How do you know if it did? "C.Therefore, the Universe had a cause" I must modify this statement also: "Therefore, the Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago had a cause." ""out of nothing, nothing comes!" Science has shown this to not be true in Quantum Mechanics. When applied to the universe, you cannot show me that there was "nothing" before the universe we know came into existence 13.75 Billion years ago. ""Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point" from literally nothing at the big bang." This is not accurate. "Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can"t prove anything until after the Big Bang." [1] "the Standard model cannot be extrapolated that far back." [2] "" Hawking and Penrose admitted that there was no singularity because their calculation" had not taken into account quantum mechanics"I do not know of a single working cosmologist today who says the universe began with a singularity" "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."" [3] "Steven Hawking"s no-boundary proposal which states that the universe simply had no beginning (A Brief History of Time, p. 136). " just as there is a limited amount of time in the universe, but try as we might" nor will we find a "beginning" or "end" of time" this doesn"t help with the apologist claim that the universe came from nothing."[2] " "[T]he state of "nothing" cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus "nothing" should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe." So, the concept of "nothing" painted by Vilenkin"s hypothesis is very different from the concept of "nothing" as preferred by Craig which seems to be synonymous with the absence of all material reality." [2] "On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite." This is an improper statement. "An eternal universe is not the same as an infinite universe. Time is the number of ticks on a clock. In the eternal universe that number is endless, not infinite. Counting backwards in time, the eternal universe has no beginning -- not a beginning an infinite time ago. The time interval from any moment in the past to the present is finite. So an eternal universe is mathematically possible." [3] You can also argue this logically: The only result of pure cause and effect logic is an infinite series of causes and effects. In order to claim there is an "uncaused first cause," you must first abandon the very logic you used to say there is a need for a cause. An "uncaused first cause" is illogical because of the logic of cause and effect. "infitine number of dollar bills" The problem with this example is that you are creating a scenario which cannot exist. Since this example cannot exist, anything you do to it cannot happen, and won"t make sense... because the infinite number of dollar bills cannot exist. (Don"t tell the Federal Reserve!) "From these facts the conclusion logically follows." An "uncaused first cause" breaks the logic of cause and effect, therefore it is illogical. There is no thing that can logically be infinite: without beginning, but you have claimed this in your dollar bill example. "The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds." How do you draw this conclusion? "Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally"" You have made further extrapolations without logic or proof. If there is no infinity, being "above time" would imply something that has existed for an infinite amount of time. Also, all powerful implies infinite power. According to your own logic, infinities are not possible, yet you are claiming two infinities in your explanation? " It follows then from the ..." In fact, all your arguments have attempted to prove that the infinities you are proposing are not possible. If infinities are possible, why can the universe not be infinite then? You have added an additional layer of complexity that cannot be logically explained, in order to logically explain the universe. All of your assertions have come from scientific misunderstandings and illogical explanations. II. Fine tuning "...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". I would add "life as we know it." From there, the arguments lie in the probabilities. What are the odds of you existing? An interesting though experiment shows: 1 in 10^2,685,000 [5] (I would agree that this is somewhat of an approximation, but consider the magnitude of this number) But, despite these odds, you exist? Despite the odds of anything else happening besides what has actually happened; what has actually happened" is what took place. In fact, what are the odds of anything at all happening? What are the odds of anything at all happening the way they did? What have these incredible odds of everything happening proved? That odds are cannot be used to prove anything. If they are, I have just proved you don"t, or shouldn"t, exist, yet you do. "constitutes .00000001%... a number best described as 0." This number is actually best described as ".00000001%." If it were truly 0, there would be no intelligent life on earth. "science has " abiotic generation of life"" There have been many breakthroughs in this area. Just because we do not know the complete and full answer yet, does not mean that we will not find out and does not mean a reasonable explanation is what you have described as God. III. Metaphysics There may be no "reason" at all as to why we exist. Any speculation as to why we exist is purely that" speculation only. It cannot be used as proof. "Multiplicity ". the uncaused cause that brought all else into being"" Again, an "uncaused first cause" is illogical. You have continually pointed out that everything requires a cause. You have also said there can be no infinities. To explain everything that exists you then are claiming that there is a "God" which does not need a cause and is infinite in many ways. "This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe"" An intelligent, infinite creator cannot meet the criteria of the reason he must exist. You said: 1. "I will accept the burden of proof"" 2.""more probable"" I contend that: 1.You have not proved the existence of God. 2.To show mathematical certainty in your assertion, you must give me two values: a.The probability that the universe arose naturally b.The probability that the universe was created by God. The premise and logic of your arguments are flawed. [Sources: http://debate.org...]