It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

I am glad to have this debate. I will defend two arguments in this debate. That there are good reasons to believe that God exist and that there are not sufficiently good reasons to believe that God does not exist. If Dan4reason wants to show atheism is more probable than he must refute my arguments and give reason to believe atheism is true. I will let my opponent give his arguments and then refute them rather than attacking straw men at this point. My first argument is the basic kalam cosmological argument: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist Therefore, the universe has a cause. We notice that the two premises are not religious at all. The fact that the universe began to exist can be found in any astrophysics and cosmology text book. This premises can be shown true for a few reasons. First: If the universe is infinite, then an infinite number of past events had to occur. This is obviously false because infinity is not an actual thing but rather just an idea. David Hilberg possibly the greatest mathematician of the 20th century said, "the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. it neither exist in nature nor provides a legitement basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." For example, what is infinity minus 10? Infinity plus 2? Mathematically you get self contradictory answers. Also Stephen Hawking (physicist) said, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20. Since everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist, we must look to see what the cause has to be. The cause would have to be an abstract object such as numbers or a personal mind. The personal mind would have to outside of space and time, immaterial, personal and powerful. It cannot be an abstract object because they cannot cause anything. The personal mind would have to be outside space and time and be immaterial in order to be logically coherent. Anthony Kenny (agnostic philosopher): "A proponent of the big bang) theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that matter came from nothing and by nothing." Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways (New York: Schocken, 1969), 66. We know this cannot be true because out of nothing, nothing comes. My next argument is dealing with the fine tuning of the universe. I will give a few examples. Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winner, biologist): "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which had to have been satisfied to get it going." Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Nature and Origin (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88. Even Richard Dawkins (zoologist) said, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), 1. Here Dawkins admits that things seem be have been designed for a purpose. However he gives no reasons as to why they only appear to be designed and were not actually designed. I look forward to hearing the refutation of these arguments from my opponent, as well as seeing his arguments for atheism. Thank You