God exists

I only have space to address your arguments, Unfortunately. 1. "If there is no god, How do you explain the fact that this universe exists? " There are a few misunderstandings you seem to have right now. I'll address those first then answer. First, The Big Bang Theory does not suggest how the universe came to be. This does not, By itself, Suggest that the universe is not infinitely old. It describes what happened a moment after the "bang" but not prior to it. It is currently our best model that explains much of what we see in the universe. This doesn't mean it is true. It means it's our best answer right now. Logic and reasoning would have us understand that we don't know how the universe was created, Or if it was created. And that is my answer to you. I don't know. My only claim here is that you do not either. You say the only two possibilities that exist are that either no one created it or someone created it. This is a false dichotomy unless you include the possibility that it was never created in "no one created it. " There are many possibilities. The universe may have always existed. There may be big bangs happening all the time in multiple universes. We could have Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches. The universe is currently expanding but we have no way to prove that it won't collapse back to a single point in the future. A being may have created it. The lack of knowledge as to how, Or if, It began does not mean a godly origin is the best or the most likely candidate. We simply lack adequate knowledge to begin to guess. "I don't know" is currently the best, And only answer all the reputable scientists will give you. It is the answer I give. Most people accept that the Big Bang Theory will be expanded upon in the future. There are mythologies in many cultures to explain why the moon waxes and wanes. They explain what the stars are as different things. The leap to "it must have been god" stems only from our lack of knowledge. We can say this because 1. Nothing we have explained with science has ever turned out to be god. 2. We have explained much of what used to be considered god's doing with science. Science is slowly but surely improving in knowledge and god is ever so gradually creeping out. Your argument here is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. Whenever we don't have a scientific explanation we jump to god. 2. Intelligent Design The issue with the inductive argument is that the universe does not have a complex design. It's actually fairly simple, Based on the knowledge we have now. There are bits that still need explanation for sure, But there's no reason yet to give credit to a god or to imply that god is the most likely explanation. Phenomena we have seen can be explained and is explained in the Big Bang model. Physics has a good understanding of much of it. When I see an airplane I know with over 99% certainty that a human made it. When I see a tree I understand that evolution made it. The universe is large enough for improbable events to occur. An airplane and the known universe are not synonymous comparisons. You have to say that you look at EVERYTHING and think it has a designer. That's your problem. For you, You look at a rock and think it has a designer. If god created everything, Saying that you look at anything is saying it has a designer. You may as well just say you see things. It is an argument that tries to appeal to "common sense" by using an airplane - a known human creation - instead of a rock, Where the appeal would fall to deaf ears. What stops me from following this chain of logic further? 1. Every design has a designer. 2. God has a complex design. 3. Therefore, God has a Designer. Your argument falls apart before it begins. An infinite regress of designer designers. No one is ruling god out as a possibility, But this is not evidence for god. 3. Fine Tuning Three counterpoints here. 3a. The universe is not fine tuned for human life. 99. 9999%+ of the universe is uninhabitable by us. As in, We would die if we were in most of it extremely quickly. The majority of the space on our own planet is uninhabitable by us. If a god's plan was to create a universe for us, He did a terrible job of it. Humans ourselves are incredibly flawed beings. To say god created this universe is to say he couldn't have made a better universe, Or that he couldn't have made humans in a superior form to what we currently have. A 3 year old could spot a few flaws with the human body in a few seconds with little to no coaching. You've probably already thought of 10 ways we could be improved. Is this the best god could do? 3b. You are comparing a highly unlikely scenario (and giving more faith to scientists than they likely deserve on how well they've analyzed the probability) with a scenario whose probability cannot be measured. You're essentially saying. 01% (much worse) < "a number I assume is higher. " This is not how logic works. You cannot call this a logical statement. What you are acknowledging though, Is that the universe could have arrived at its constants without a god to do so for it. So you acknowledge that we may have gotten extremely lucky. I don't acknowledge that a supreme power capable of finely tuning the universe whose existence is unexplained or outside the realm of logic is more likely than the former scenario that is inside the realm of logic. I don't acknowledge that you understand that probability any better than I do. 3c. We don't know what other lifeforms could exist if those constants were changed. Why do you assume that when 90% of scientists in royal academies don't profess a belief in god that they are wrong (even when most of them have almost certainly heard of this argument before), Yet you assume we have such a good grasp of science that we understand what life could exist if those constants were changed? We could all be gaseous lifeforms, Or exist on the same realm as you may think god does. Your point is a good one, But without knowing the probability of a universe-creating fine-tuning being spawning out of nothing, Or assuming he doesn't have a creator, You cannot logically say that the probability of the universe existing with these constants - which you acknowledge is possible regardless of the low probability - is lower than god existing. This is closer to evidence for god, But a long, Long reach of logic. This is the best argument of all of them for god's existence, By most people's estimation, But you are estimating god's probability here, And that is a faith position, Not a scientific one. I'll go with the explanation that we know could have happened. There are plenty of circumstances that are unlikely to have occurred probability-wise but have occurred. Technically, We don't know that there aren't infinite universes and that we just happen to be conscious in one of the few where our existence is possible. 4. Abiogenesis This argument is the same as the universe's creation. However, There are more clear answers here. Abiogenesis experiments have yielded some results. The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 has produced amino acids from inorganic precursors. This is not "no evidence. " If the most basic self-replicator can be shown to exist, Evolution gives us the rest of complexity. If you look up the study you'll see it. So no, We can't point directly to the first Life. We can't draw a line all the way from the big bang to us quite yet, But we're making grounds. Progress is being made, Slowly. To insert god here instead of saying "I don't know" is again "God of the Gaps. " Saying because we can't draw that line it MUST have been god. That it is the only explanation. This is not how logic works. Please remember, The universe is a big place. We don't know how big it is. Improbable events have plenty of likelihood to occur. They are harder to reproduce and prove. God is not the logical conclusion.