God exists

"if we cannot perceive God by observing the natural world" Take a black hole for example. We cannot see, Hear, Touch, Taste, Or smell a black hole. But we believe they exist because we can observe the way they impact the universe around them. Now take God. We cannot see, Hear, Touch, Taste, Or smell God. But we can see that an unmoved mover must have brought the universe into being, And we know that the likelihood of the universe existing is next to none. "squared-circle? " Like I said, You can be almost 100% sure that a squared circle doesn't exist, But you cannot PROVE to me that in some geometrical dimension a squared circle doesn't exist. So you would perform a chi-square to show that it's unlikely. I agree, If something so ridiculous as Dr. Who handing you a chocolate bar was claimed to have happened I would need some serious proof to believe it. But that's more or less what you're claiming by suggesting that the Universe came about on its own. Let's not forget that it isn't God that's unlikely. You're making the near impossible claim. Not me. The existence of a God is evident in the mere existence of the universe. As we observe the Universe we see that the most likely explanation is a Creator. God is also evident in the existence of objective morality. In all sorts of scientific discussion we're dealing with probabilities. So yes, My argumentation does boil down to probability. Welcome to science. Are you new here? Just look up "can anything be proven in science" and you'll get page after page of results that say I'm right. So, You also like to state that since there are other gods I also am betting on a lottery ticket. Not so. Whether or not A god exists is almost an indisputable probability but if my goal is to avoid hell then I'm really choosing from one of the Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Christian and Jewish theology mostly agree that both of those groups are fine. So really I have a 50/50 shot. You however are betting on odds that are on trillion trillion trillion times below a statistical impossibility. See the difference? I am not basing my belief on objective reality on God. I'm pointing out that objective morality DOES exist and must for even subjective moral reality to exist, Therefore God must also exist. So it's the other way around. Moving on, The serial killer is wrong. 2+2 objectively equals 4. I can swear up and down that it equals 5 but that just makes me wrong and mathematically illiterate. The same holds true for morality. Just because objective morality exists doesn't mean everyone will follow it. My opponent also seems to make the assertion that objective morality is a force that can stop immoral things from happening. Not so. "where was it when the jews were gassed" morality isn't a conscious force. I agree, Slavery is objectively bad. Therefore, If slavery is always bad then objective morality exists. You may also try to make an argument based on utility, But even then every utilitarian system of morality needs to have an underlying, Objective, Hierarchy of values through which we determine what's best for society. "so we can skip that argument" the argument I was skipping over is whether or not objective morality exists. He conceded that it did exist by saying slavery is bad. Also, The rest of my argument did not rest on objective morality existing so we can consider it dropped. Meaning he ignored my argument for objective morality based on a colorless universe which is not based on an assumption of objective morality. I'm an Ockham's Razor guy. I don't make arguments based on assumptions. All right, Let's take this nice and slow. If God created the Universe as the unmoved mover (which must exist) then it must predate matter because it brought matter into existence. Matter can't exist before it's created. Follow? "another assumption made using a probable argument" I'm not addressing any more "probability is bad" arguments this round. I've done enough. The unmoved mover must exist. If it doesn't the universe doesn't function because of thermodynamic equilibrium another point he has completely ignored. By picking either the Christianic or Islamic mover I have a shot. You have no shot. Well technically you do but your shot is one trillion trillion trillion times below a statistical impossibility. One reason to pick the christian God is because he is a God of logic. Allah is a God of will. And a God of will runs up against the immaculate order apparent in the universe. "I would put this down as convenient rather than actually giving and answer. " You don't seem to understand that if those things aren't true then the unmoved mover doesn't exist and the universe doesn't function. Your logic is so broken that if it's true nothing can exist. You break the universe. And because the universe isn't broken we know your logic is false. My personal philosophy leads me to believe that the christian God is the right one. But that isn't the resolution. This debate is over A god. Not a specific god. There also aren't countless gods that Pascals wager works for. Only two. The Judeo-Christian God, And the Islamic God. One more time, God is the unmoved mover, The uncaused cause. Denying that the unmoved mover exists breaks the universe. Thus he does not have a creator. If you would like for me to post a citation for every paper Fred Hoyle ever wrote I will. But that would be dumb. Since his statement that I cited was developed over his entire career that's what you're asking for. Also, After further research it turns out you were wrong about meyer too. He holds a degree from Cambridge over Geophysics which is related to biology. Take one of the branches of geophysics, Oceanography which is defined as: the branch of science that deals with the physical and biological properties and phenomena of the sea. So he actually is qualified to speak on the physics of biology and the philosophy of science which is really what my point was about. God cannot be observed in the same way that black holes cannot be observed. We can however observe God's impact on the natural world and we can note that through our observation of the natural world we come to realization that the natural world shouldn't exist. Back to that one part in 1010^123. Therefore, I'm not making an unfalsifiable claim because we can still observe the impact of the God Theory. The definition of an unfalsifiable theory is Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an OBSERVATION or the outcome of any physical experiment, Usually without strong evidence or good reasons.