God exists

I'm going to begin by making a blanket attack over my opponents point on probability. Throughout the debate he says that the argument from probability is bad because it still leaves room for God not to exist. This argument falls for a number of reasons. First, The purpose of science is to determine what is probable. There's no such thing as proven in science. We perform operations such as Chi-Squares in order to determine whether or not a hypothesis is more probable than the null hypothesis. Further, In reality nothing is truly impossible. New formations of matter appear seemingly out of nowhere on the quantum level all of the time. These particles are usually on their own when they come into existence but it is not impossible, Albeit highly improbable that many of them could come into being at just the right time and place to have the TARDIS appear in front of you, Have Dr. Who step out of it and hand you a chocolate bar. Does that mean that you would be justified in thinking that this has actually occurred? Of course not. We're dealing with the same sort of probability with the universe existing. Frankly, This argument for atheism is akin to betting everything you own on a lottery ticket except it's literally almost infinitely impossible for you to win. The problem with my opponents argument against my objective morality point is that it ignores the fact that objective morality needs to come from somewhere. He's already conceded that objective morality exists by saying slavery is bad. So we can skip that argument. Instead we're going to focus on whether or not objective morality can exist separate from a god. Objective morality requires a reference point. Think of it like this: Humans create fictitious things all of the time but none that come out of nowhere. Werewolves are a combination of humans and wolves, Unicorns are an extension of a horse, Magic is an explanation for natural phenomenon etc. Morality is no different. Consider the case of a blind man attempting to understand color. He has no reference point for color therefore he is incapable of understanding the qualitative features of color. An amoral universe separate from a god is akin to a colorless universe where we wouldn't have a reference point for morality. As I stated, If objective morality exists, Which you have conceded, Then moral law and thus a moral lawgiver must also exist because objective moral truths don't arise on their own. Next, My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that God exists within the same matter based universe that we do. God, Being the unmoved mover, Predates matter and thus must be incorporeal. Thus not falling into the same trap of creation that matter does. God would also need to be infinite which as I stated, Ockhams Razor suggests is the most probable kind of being. You also failed to refute the point that denying an unmoved mover places the timeline into a state of infinite regression. However, Since you can't name an alternate unmoved mover you have this regression. If we do fall into an infinite past of creation, Then the universe would have already achieved thermodynamic equilibrium and all things would cease to happen. But of course, It hasn't. God does not fall into the same line of requiring a creator because he is not finite or made of matter. Everything else is. As for Pascals wager, Right now let's just focus on A god. We don't need to pick one yet that's a whole other debate. Right now, Let's just recognize that as an atheist there is a 0% chance of anything good upon death. Even if you can't be sure which god is the right one to pick you at least have a chance. I think I messed up the order on that. I'll change the wording for the future. I think it's supposed to read the laws of the universe are highly unlikely because they're complex. Because of my typo you misunderstood that section of the argument we can come back to it later. First off, Fred Hoyle is a Cosmologist and an astronomer. He is most famous for his work on stellar nucleosynthesis which is a part of cosmology. As for your claim of an appeal to authority fallacy, An appeal to authority only takes place if the authority is the primary part of why my claim is true. Otherwise, If it's just a support then it's no different than citing any other source. Also, This quote didn't come from a scientific paper, It was a view developed over a lifetime of scientific pursuits. Nothing created god. God would be the primordial unmoved mover which must exist to avoid infinite regression. My opponent commits an argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy against Stephen C. Meyer. You didn't address the actually point you merely attacked the person. You are capable of holding an educated view on something if you didn't go to college for it. Everyone can read books. My opponent states that I "lacked thinking" when choosing my sources. First, You were wrong about Hoyle. Second, Meyer is an intelligent design theorist. He is qualified to talk about that, Yes? Therefore we can safely believe that he had done a large amount of research on the topic and those surrounding it. Your stacking ad hominems won't be sufficient to dismiss the point. My opponent also claims that scientists who believe that intelligent design is the best explanation for the universe are pseudo scientists. He does not understand however, That these scientists are not attempting to observe god. They are observing the natural world, Then when they note that it's almost infinitely impossible for it to even exist they suggest that the best explanation is intelligent design. That doesn't make them pseudo scientists. To answer your question at the beginning, I always use the same opening arguments and there's not reason to retype them differently every time so I just use the same wording.