God most likely exists

I apologize for the delay in posting; I had personal matters to tend to.Law of Parsimony/Ockham’s RazorCon appears to be arguing that causation requires time (by extension, space). But since there was not a “before the universe,” causality of the universe is not possible, therefore making God impossible. But Con fails to explain why this is so. Also, why should we believe that causality can only happen within time and space? Not only should we not believe it because Con only barely asserts it, but because it is simply false. We’ll demonstrate: P1: A foetus is an innocent human beingP2: All innocent human beings have a right to lifeC1: A foetus has a right to lifeP3: Abortion contravenes the foetus's right to lifeP4: That which contravenes a human being's rights should be prohibited by the GovernmentC2: Abortion should be prohibited by the Government. Above is an argument against abortion. It is important to note that the premises have no physical relation to the conclusions. Also note that the premises are not physical objects. Notice however that there is a casual relationship between the premises and the conclusions. If the premises are true, then it causes valid conclusions. If they are false, then they cause false conclusions. If, however, causality is only applicable in space and time, then this argument against abortion, or any argument for that matter, would not be sound. KCA (1)Con claims that we presume the uniformity of nature in referencing cause and effect. But this is blatantly false. Con’s objection rests on the idea that causality is only true in the physical realm, which we have disproven.(2) Con claims that there is no evidence that an absolute frame of reference exists. But why is this so? Not only is this point disputed [1], but for support of his position, Con provides theories that have not been proven. Furthermore, Con does not explain why these theories are any better than the idea that an absolute frame of reference exists.(3) Con argues that since the KCA does not prove intelligence, then it is irrelevant. But that would be like saying that the paradox of the stone is irrelevant because it does not disprove that God is not the creator of the universe. That is not the intention of the argument.First Cause(1) The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes; it is an interlocking link of things that have begun at some point to exist. Due to this, each thing that exists presently in the universe must have had a previous cause as per the Principle of Sufficient Reason. So, when it is said that everything within the universe has a cause, it logically follows that the universe itself has a cause. But why must the universe have a cause? If it does not, then the Principle of Sufficient Reason has been violated for everything. Everything in existence would be proximately explained, but not ultimately — the entirety of the universe would not be explained. If the universe was not caused, it would then be a chain where each event is a link in this chain. Each link would be supported by another, but the chain as a whole would be unsupported.This is best explained in the following analogy:If there is no initial cause, then the universe is similar to a locomotive moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the preceding car: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. This scenario would be impossible. Why, then, should this concept apply to the universe? [2]It then follows, using the above reasoning, that the universe ought to have a First, Uncaused Cause that initiated the state of being. This cause would be dissociated from the universe, and thusly go beyond the laws of nature.Existence is handed down a chain of causes; this is outlined in the notion of cause-and-effect. If there is no external first cause, no sempiternal and self-sufficient being, no source that does not have to borrow existence from another, then existence would be impossible, as there would be nothing to pass down existence. But we exist. We exist due to previous causes. Thus there must be a first cause that transcends the universe — God.An uncaused cause must not have predetermined behavior. It must have acted freely because there would be no explanation pertaining to why it acted this way. The causes existed externally from the universe, and so it can be reasonably held that this was the initial cause.(2) This argument is compatible with metaphysical causation; it does not necessarily hold that simultaneous causation is impossible. There is no infinite regression of past causes if there is an uncased cause. It merely holds that simultaneous causation of the universe is impossible — it did not apply here.Time is limited to the universe, but God, being the transcendent cause of the universe, would be outside of both the universe and its limitations. It is thus held that God is outside of time, and simultaneous causation is unnecessary [3].(3) We have an uncaused cause that is unnatural, free, and not predetermined or created. The independent actions of this cause implies it has the means to apply knowledge and skills, i.e intelligence. This is the first cause of the universe — God [4]. Fine Tuning(1) The Fine Tuning of the universe demonstrates how complex the universe is. As Robin Collins puts it, “Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance? Certainly not. Instead, we would unanimously conclude that it was designed by some intelligent being. Why would we draw this conclusion? Because an intelligent designer appears to be the only plausible explanation for the existence of the structure. That is, the only alternative explanation we can think of--that the structure was formed by some natural process--seems extremely unlikely [5].” (2) The difference between Con’s card analogy and fine tuning is that his card analogy shows 52 possible outcomes, whereas the universe is so precise that any other order or value would have made it impossible for life to exist. His using the deck of cards to show that any possibility is just as likely as any other was supposed to refute a design inference because any set of constants of physics is just as likely as any other. However, this is exactly what we are trying to find, and his using this assumption is question-begging. The question we are asking here is this: Given the fine-tuning evidence, how likely is it that the constants were set at random? The physical constants of the universe conform to one specific pattern: that which is in support of life. There are so many finely-turned constants present in the universe that it makes it extremely unlikely that the specific tuning of the universe was random.(3) Con then claims that I am quote mining. He then goes on to provide the entire phrase. However, If you read the entire article, he clearly agrees with the quote that was present, thus this rebuttal is irrelevant. Irreducible ComplexityIrreducibly Complexity is quite relevant. Jimmy Akin once made a list of the most common positions people take on how life arose. It consists of: 1) Creationism2) Intelligent Design3) Theistic Evolution4) Atheistic EvolutionEvolution is the atheist’s only explanation for how life arose. If evolution is wrong, then the atheist’s only explanation disappears. This means that the only options left are positions that include a God to explain how life arose. ___________________________________________________[1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[2] http://www.peterkreeft.com...[3] http://ihavetoargue.blogspot.com...[4] Ibid[5] http://www.discovery.org...