Rematch Debate: God Exists

IntroductionAs the burden of proof is shared, all I must do is provide better arguments than Con that pertain to the probability that God exists. In other words, I have no burden of proof to prove that God definitely, inarguably exists, nor that he definitely is omnipotent, omniscient etc. .. All I must do is provide cogent arguments that conclude that it is probable that God exists, and that it is probable that he is omnipotent, omniscient and so forth. As my opponent is well aware, there are many different arguments for the existence of God. I will choose the one I use based on not just its cogency, but on its ability to assert the probability of God having the attributes he is defined as having in round 1. These are:1. Omnipotence (the ability to do any logically possible action)2. Intelligence (having a sentient mind with complex ideas and a high level of knowledge)3. Transcendence (being outside space and time, although this does not mean that God cannot enter space and time if he so wished, all this means is that he is not essentially bounded by space and time).4. Immense greatness (being comparatively large in a variety of aspects)5. All-seeing (being able to observe all that it is possible to observe)6. Creator of the universe (the cause of the universe's ultimate existence, where the universe is defined as all space, matter, energy and time considered as a whole)I have a shared burden of proof to argue that it is probable that God exists and that it is probable that he has the above attributes. Teleological argumentThis is an argument that uses abductive reasoning, viz. an appeal to best explanation from observation of a given phenomenon. For this argument, I observe the phenomenon of the universe having the exact properties that entail the existence of complex life, and seek to postulate the most probable explanation for this phenomenon. For characters' sake, I will refer to the 'universe having the exact properties to entail complex life' as an 'LPU' (life permitting universe). But note that I am specifically referring to complex life, the likes of mammals, reptiles, birds and so on - including humanity. Observation: The universe is an LPU. This is uncontroversial, we can observe empirically that complex life exists, and hence the universe permits it. From this observation, we have multiple possible abductions we could make:1. The universe is an LPU by chance2. The universe is an LPU because it is necessarily so, viz. it could not have failed to be an LPU3. The universe is an LPU because it was designed to be an LPUThe first two abductions are naturalistic, the last is deistic. Now, we must address the relative probabilities of the three potential explanations.1 - ChanceThis explanation is by far the most improbable. The maximum deviations of any of the main universal constants are as follows:Ratio of Electrons to Protons- 1:10^37Ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity- 1:10^40Expansion Rate of Universe- 1:10^55Mass Density of Universe- 1:10^59Cosmological Constant- 1:10^120(1)If any of these constants deviated by more than their above values, then the universe would either be unable to form stars, be unable to form complex-life-permitting stars (LPS) or be unable to form galaxies. (2)Just to give an idea of the huge improbabilities of even the most flexible of the above constants (1:10^37), I will quote Dr. Hugh Ross, a doctor of Astrophysics:'One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U. S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes. ). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37' (3)But the probability of the universe being an LPU by chance is even more unlikely than 1 in10^37. If even one of the above constants deviated more than its maximum deviation then the universe would not be an LPU. So, in reality, the probability of the universe having the exact constants is:(1/10^37) x (1/10^40) x (1/10^55) x (1/10^59) x (1/10^120) = 1/10^311Which is an unimaginable tiny number. At this level, the probability is effectively 0.2 - NecessityWhilst this is an explanation that would explain why the universe is an LPU, we can reason that the universe is not necessarily an LPU. This is because, in a modal sense, X is necessarily Y if and only if it is absurd or incoherent to postulate that there is a possible world where X =/= Y. But it is not absurd to postulate a possible world where the universe is not an LPU, so the universe is not necessarily an LPU.3 - DesignCompared to chance and necessity, this abduction is the most reasonable. ConclusionTherefore, via abductive reasoning, the most probable explanation for the phenomenon of the universe being an LPU is that it was designed to be life permitting. Consequently, there must exist a being that is responsible for this design. What do we know about this being? Is it probable that this being is omnipotent, intelligent, transcendent, immensely great, all-seeing and the creator of the universe? 'Creator of the universe'What we do know is that this being designed the universe (as this is how His existence is abduced). It is reasonable to postulate that the designer of the universe is also the creator of the universe, as otherwise we need to postulate another God-like being that created the universe using the designs of the God we have already proven. But this contravenes Occams's Razor, since it is a needless postulation of extra entities. So we can conclude that it is probable that if God designed the universe, he also created it. 'transcendent'The creator of the universe must not be essentially a part of the universe, otherwise he would be creating himself (which is absurd). Therefore, God must be outside space and time (transcendent). 'omnipotence'The creator of the universe must be a being of considerable power, since the universe is so unimaginably large and complex. It is probable that this being is omnipotent, as a lack of omnipotence implies a physical limitation; yet a transcendental God is outside space and time and so cannot be subject to any physical limitation. Therefore it is probable that the creator of the universe is omnipotent. 'intelligence'By the same measure, it stands to reason that the designer of our huge, fine-tuned and complex universe would be intelligent, otherwise the designer would not have been able to ensure a state of affairs that allows complex life to exist. 'immense greatness'Although the term 'immensely great' is arguably subjective, it is a fair appreciation of the designer and creator of the universe to call this being immensely great. 'all-seeing-ness'This property is an implication of being omnipotent, since omnipotence entails the ability to observe everything that God so wishes to see. ConclusionI have used a teleological argument to:1) Prove that a designer of the universe exists2) Assert that it is probable that this designer has the properties ascribed in round 1.3) Identify this existent being as God. Hence I affirm the resolution. (1) . http://www.godandscience.org...(2) Ibid. (3) Ross, Hugh - 'The Creator and the Cosmos' p.115