Is it likely that God exists.

FINE TUNINGImprobable things happen all the time:A "Sullivan", is not that suprising when you consider the fact that there are millions upon millions of people, thus millions upon millions of people to whom this could possibly happen to. It is one thing where you have had uncountable opportunities where this could happen, and another thing entirely when you have only one opportunity. Their is only one universe.Each individual set of constants is equally improbablethe problem with your card illustration is that its concerned with why we have a particular permutation of cards. In that case, all card sets are equally improbable, and You would HAVE to get at least one certain shuffle. The problem here is NOT that it's improbable for any specific set of constants to be our set of constants. The problem here is that against insane, improbable odds, we have a set of constants which can support life.The thing is, a life supporting universe happening by chance alone is ASTRONOMICALLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLY, CAPS-LOCK INDUCINGLY unlikely. Sure it may be infintesimally "possible" that our universe got these precise values by chance alone. though these odds are insanely below what we would consider reasonably possible. If a level of precision of one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is required for life to be possible, then I think it is safe to say that life didn't happen by accident. An accuracy of even 1 in 10^60 is like shooting a bullet across the observable universe, 22 billion light years away, and nailing a 1 inch target. By a "Life permitting" universe, I mean a universe where there is even the mere possibility of life. While we can't calculate the actual chances of life occuring(correct me if I am wrong); We still know the bottom lines for life. For example: Life needs stars, because without stars, heavy elements like carbon cannot form, and there is little to no warmth whatsoever. If the cosmological constant wasn't fine tuned , the universe expands to fast for stars to form. If the gravitational constant was any different by one part in 10^60, the universe would collapse back in on itself. In neither situation is their even the mere possibility for life. Life is defined in very conservative terms here: the property of organism to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. Anything which has these qualities would count as life, no matter what strange form it may take.Multiverse objectionthe Multiverse is unproven, and even if it did exist, it is highly unlikely that the multiverse wouldn't be fine tuned as well. Even with string theory, you only get 1^500 worlds, which is not even close to the monstrous 1 in 10^10^123 chance of the mass-energy ratio being jusstttt right. Plus, in any observable universe, it would be far more probable that we live in a universe where we are literally just floating brains who arose out of the quantum vacuum with delusions of an outside world, than it would be to be living in a universe with such incredibly high levels of order. This problem is known as the attack of the boltzmann brains. The boltzmann brain KALAMThomas aquinas? I really fail to see how this is an objection. The basic rule something cannot come from nothing still holds. It just so happens that pushing things doesn't always speed them up. The speed of light is the maximum speed limit. But the problem here is I haven't heard a similar objection to premise one. You presented the quantum vacuum, but to assume the quantum vacuum is nothing would be a mistake, would be a mistake. Just because the Kalam is old, and convinced people back then, doesn't mean that it is therefore invalid. It is unproved that a timeless spaceless being can exist.I think it is a little bit late to say that don't you think? Your objection is merely an unjustified assumption that timeless spaceless beings are IMPOSSIBLE, a claim you have provided sans evidence. I have no burden of proof to bear, because as it rests right now, with no evidence against the possibility of a timeless spaceless being, it is possible that a timeless spaceless being can exist a priori. So the argument still flies unscathed. Not to mention that the kalam argument, if it succeeds, is evidence that a timeless spaceless being does indeed exist. Also, God was timeless prior to creation, but temporal subsequent to creation, and so He hasn't existed for 0 seconds. Why can't quantum vacuum be the uncaused cause?The uncaused cause must be spaceless. The quantum vacuum is not spaceless, rather it is inextricably linked to space. the vacuum is only present within space, as space is what it essentialy is. No space, no quantum vacuum. Because the existence of the quantum vacuum is thus contingent upon the existence of space, (something which did not exist prior to the Beginning according to the Big Bang model)it cannot be the uncaused cause.No proof for contradictions in an actual infinityWe understand infinity quite well actually; it is through this understanding that we see the absurdities associated with an actual infinite.Hilberts hotel: imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and all of them are full. A single person walks up to the concierge, and asks, can I have a room. The concierge says yes, and sends the guy in room 1 to room 2, the guy in 2 to 3, ad infinitum. Now suppose an infinite number of guests arrive. He can accomodate them too!!! All he has to do is move every old guest into the room number twice their own, thus emptying all the odd numbered rooms. An infinite number of empty rooms, ripe for the taking. The concierge can keep on doing this as many times as he needs to!!! Now suppose all of the guests in the odd numbered roooms want to leave. An infinite number of guests have just left, and yet there is still an infinite number of guests in the hotel. Here, infinity - infinity is still infinity. Now suppose everyone above room 2, decides to leave as well. Suddenly in one fell swipe, the guest list is reduced to a mere 2 guests, (technically only one guest if you consider the guy who left room one). suddenly, infinity - infinity, is one! This is a logical contradiction: we have just subtracted identical quantities from identical quanties, and gotten nonidentical results! These absurdities are what we would have to accept if the idea of an actual infinity was possible in reality. Heaven constitutes an actual infinite time:No it doesn't. No matter how long you live in heaven, you will never have been their for an infinite period of time. Your existence in heaven or hell is potentially infinite, not actually infinite. A potentially infinity will never end, it will keep on increasing, though its duration will never reach infinity, much like a never ending series of A's and B's. However if the past were infinite, that would constitute an actual infinite number of events, as we already have a complete infinite set.