God's existence is highly unlikely

IntroductionIn 2011, the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded for the discovery a decade earlier (1999) that our universe has a positive cosmological constant.In 2003, it has been proven by Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin (foremost authorities in modern cosmology) that any universe that has a positive cosmological constant has a fixed space-time boundary and therefore has a temporal beginning. If the same universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse consequentially also has a temporal beginning.A temporal beginning implies a cause, and this debate therefore is not about whether the universe has a cause but rather, what is the nature of that cause? Scientific Criteria of Proof To prove that God exists, I need to show that the cause of the universe exhibited consciousness and it is that consciousness that willed the existence of the universe. It may not necessarily possess all traits that are part of the baggage of religion but to meet the criteria of evidence, I must be consistently scientific and there is nothing scientific about many religious claims.The existence of God is not a claim unique to Religion. It is shared by many cultures and is manifested in Philosophy even when divorced from Religion.If God exists, it would have existed at least 14 Billion years ago and therefore pre-date civilization and religion.It is therefore futile to discredit the proof of existence based on the ad-hoc claims of religion.What is most likely true are that many religion and what people claim in their free time is wrong and God has nothing to do with them. So I hope this debate is not about Religion. Definition of God But by being the cause of the universe and with the ability to realize reality, God must be extremely powerful (omnipotent) and as the source of physical and moral laws, it must be omniscient or possess great understanding those laws. If its existence is established, it follows automatically that it established our very existence, our intellect and capacity for free-will and must be worthy of our admiration and worship.Even by allowing the existence of Evil, God remains logically consistent. And consistent with the grant of free will, God has to refrain from interference with our thoughts and actions including the ability to conceive evil and to act upon them. The act of making these choices and the moral growth that comes with it cannot be realized if evildoes not exist.Therefore, it is thru God’s benevolent nature that humanity is free and by allowing evil and suffering, fashioned us to evolve with firm and complete moral ascendancy rather than become blissful puppets with empty souls. If God exists, it realized a reality where its inhabitants were made free but guided towards moral growth. God therefore, is Divine. Consistent with the inflationary nature of the universe, Space-and-time were created during the big-bang by the energy that permeated the quantum vacuum. If God exists, the energy is not separate from God but is its physical manifestation. Therefore, God is time-less and space-less, and due to the thermodynamic nature of energy (cannot be created), God is non-contingent and necessary. The argument that something can “create” God must also show how you can “create” energy and violate its thermodynamic nature, and therefore is invalid. This debate is about existence, not about ad-hoc definitions I have demonstrated in the previous section that God sufficiently satisfies the definition of PRO. So I hope this debate will remain true to the spirit of the motion – proof of the existence of God rather than debate about definitions. Modern atheists are notorious for coming up with their own interpretation for these definitions and debunk God’s existence by showing that God failed to fulfil their interpretation. One notorious example is if God is powerful, it should be able to create a circle which is also a square. It comes with other variants like the powerful sword and impenetrable shield. A circle is a collection of points equidistant to another point and a square is formed using parallel lines. Circles and square are labels to designate different shapes, and by definition, are different. Do you see where this is going? And so please, let’s keep this debate intelligible. Having said that, I accept and let an epic debate battle begin!!!