Is it likely that God exists.

"Why doesn't Christianity stand out? It should, therefore Christianity is false. Not necessarily. Just because something is true, does not mean that it must be blatantly obvious that it is true. You yourself don't believe in the power of intuition, and yet you make an extremely intuitive argument. Inconsistencies aside, it is just BAD. Also, wouldn't it seem likely that false religions would try and incorporate bits of the true religion into it, thus blurring the lines between false religions and True religions. These other religions may have bits of truth, like in Islam or Judaism, so the waters of distinction are muddled. But that does mean they are all completely true. Now, This argument is NOT about whether Christianity is true, (Though I would like to debate that). It is about whether or not it is likely that God exists. please do not bring up another red herring. Divine Hiddenness. "The second argument made by my opponent is the fine tuning argument. You believe that the universe was designed for life however it only appears designed. Only a small portion of our planet is habitable by humans. Everyday millions of us die from diseases, disasters etc. Only about 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe can support life. Most of the universe is just an empty space. We just so happen to live in a place that does support life. I'd be quite amazed if we lived in a place that can't support life. Then I'd believe in a divine power." First off, a planet which cannot support life,and has life on it, would by definition be a life supporting planet, regardless of the prior conditions established for a "life supporting planet". God did not make Man to be invincible. So why the heck would God put us on a life prohibiting planet where it is 5,000 degrees if we were not made for that?!? Plus, Your dismissive attitude towards the Fine Tuning argument is kind of funny. "It appears designed, but it isn't". is'nt that presupposing atheism? If we have no rational warrant to believe that it is NOT designed, then we should accept that our observations that it is designed are true. Even if our world is not perfect, (Which even the bible says it is not), that doesn't by any means require it to not be designed. So you will have to deal with the problem with design as a valid option still. Now if these constants were infinitesimally different, then that already minute 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe which supports life would be reduced to a 0%. We wouldn't be here, neither would ANY form of life. This is not an objection to, but an argument FOR fine tuning. For if the chance for life, even in a universe with the right quantities, is *that* small, then it is all the more miraculous that we are here! Our mere minuscule size compared to the rest of the of universe is irrelevant to our moral significance. Calling the vastness of the universe a "waste", is ridiculous when you are talking about a God who does not need to marshal His resources. The rareness of life in the universe would only serve to amplify our place in the cosmos, as sentient life like us, would be extremely rare in the grand scheme of things. Also, just because the universe is a dangerous place, does not mean it is not designed. The Kalam cosmological argument: Your "apple argument", has a major problem. First off, if your price for disbelieving in God is attacking the validity of deductive logic, your price for non-belief is WAYYY too high. Secondly, it fails because things cannot go faster than the speed of light. There are things known as "Objections" to arguments, and this would be one of them. The first premise is true in some circumstances, but not ALL circumstances. Given how it is not a situation which You have not provided such an objection, merely an argument which is objectionable. Also, I know about Quantum Fluctuations, where "Virtual particles" come into existence out of empty space. The Problem with this is that empty space is not nothing. The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy with a richly endowed structure, (Bernulf Kanitscheider, "does physical cosmology transcend naturalistic reason?") hardly what you would call "nothing". Plus, only in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, do the particles come in utterly uncaused, and this interpretation is becoming increasingly rare. The different interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically identical, though each has different metaphysical implications. The implications of the Copenhagen interpretation are ridiculous, like a particle traveling in all directions at once. Their are metaphysical as well as scientific to believe that the universe began to exist. (first we must distinguish between a potential and an actual infinite. A potential infinite is where infinity is merely an ideal limit which is never reached, like how far a coin will fall if dropped into an infinite well. an actual infinite is a complete infinite set.) 1. An actual infinite number of things cannot exist 2. a beginning-less series of events constitutes an actual infinite number of things. 3. therefore, the series of past events cannot be beginning-less 1. the series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another. 2. a collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite. (You can't count to infinity, and this is evident even in the abstractions of mathematics) 3. therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.