Belief in God is an intellectually valid standpoint

Thanks to my opponent for the debate, This argument has long since been debunked so lets get started: Premise 1 has massive problems. Firstly my opponent uses a poor analogy. He is arguing using the watchmaker analogy. The problem inductively here is that he is trying to act as though complex things imply a designer. This simply is not so. Lets look at a couple of sets: Set of all complex things: ( (set of complex things that are proven to be designed), (set of complex things not proven to be designed)) ok, so the set of complex things contains 2 different sets as we see. I contend that since the set of complex things not proven to be designed is far greater in size then the set of complex things that are proven to be designed, there is no reason what so ever to inductively draw this conclusion. IN other words the set of things like galaxies,planets, stars, solar systems, plants, caves, and more outweighs the number of man made things. Therefore his inductive reasoning that complex things require a designer is deeply and utterly flawed. A second problem is that the argument presents either the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division. Let me first go about it looking at it from the fallacy of composition way. Anything that began to exist, that we know of is a part of the universe. Since it is a part of the universe we are now going to attempt to attribute this attribute to the entire universe. Attributing an attribute of the parts to the entire set is the fallacy of composition. You could also look at it the opposite way. Firstly this commits the fallacy of equivocation, everything that began to exist is a result of matter reacting. That is completely different from coming together ex nihilo, or from nothing. We are talking about two different things beginning to exist from something vs beginning to exist out of nothing. We have no experience with this, so it is not possible to draw conclusions on how something would come to exist ex nihilo, based on things that came to exist from something. With that said, when you think about it the universe is the lay out fo the matter that everything that came to exist is made of. So, now we are attributing the attributes of the whole, to the parts it is made from, that is the fallacy of division. These last 2 arguments are two different ways of thinking about the same problem. The premise that the universe had a beginning is likely but not definitiely here is a quote from Victor Stengers book God: The failed Hypothesis: As we saw "above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge." The universe could have existed in another form before the big bang. Therefore there is no reason to believe the universe had a beginning. The other problem is if the universe had a cause we have no reason to believe it was god. As we have seen even if we accept the fallacious reasoning used in the first and second reason, inductively we just have no reason to believe it is a personal cause, since more complex things tend to come from natural results with no indication of design, then we have evidence for design. There are other reasons we know a coke bottle was designed, it is not just that the coke bottle is complex.