It is probable that God exists

I. The KCA The Kalam cosmological argument advanced by Dr. Craig can be formulated as follows[1]: P1. Whatever begins to exist has a causeP2. The Universe began to existC. Therefore, the Universe had a cause 1. is seemingly indisputable. As Craig put it, out of nothing, nothing comes! To deny this premise goes against reason and thousands of years of human observation and experience; indeed, to question it we must also question why things like a glass of orange juice or a cat do not just randomly appear out of nothing. 2. is more controversial, however there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that the Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point. On the scientific side, there is a startling and rapidly growing pile of evidence indicating that the Universe began to exist from literally nothing at the big bang. This theory is supported by repeated observations such as red shift showing that the Universe is still expanding from the big bang, and thermodynamics. On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite. Indeed imagine for a moment if I took an infitine number of dollar bills and lined them up in order of serial number, then imagine that I took out all of the dollar bills with even serial numbers and lined them up in a seperate line, what would be the results? I would also have an infinite number of even numbered dollar bills--a logical contradiction since that would entail that infinity minus infinity equals infinity! But clearly this is absurd! The idea that infinity can exist in reality is simply philosophically bankrupt, causing the mathmetician David Hillbert to conclude[2]:"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea..." From these facts the conclusion logically follows. But what exactly does this conclusion entail? What could have possibly caused the Universe? We can logically deduce that whatever caused the Universe was outside of it (obviously, for nothing can logically create itself). The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds. But since numbers cannot cause anything, the cause must therefore be a mind. Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally but rather supernaturally. It must be above time, above space, and imensly if not all powerful in order to iniate the creation of all things from literally nothing. It follows then from the Cosmological argument that you have a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, imensely powerful, personal mind. Clearly this strongly confirms the God hypothesis. II. Fine tuningAs scientists discover more about our world and it's beginnings they are discovering more and more that the paremeters allowing life to evolve are incredibly narrow and specific. Boa & Bowman[3] explain that, for example, if the strong nuclear force was off by 1% the Universe would be either all hydrogen or contain no Hydrogen at all, if the gravitational force was slightly stronger stars would be "so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly [for life]", or if the electromagnetic force was weaker electrons would fly away before the could be bound into molecules, or if slightly stronger atoms would not be able to share, again leading to no molecules and thus no life. And so on and so forth. Indeed, even the initial beginning of the Universe has been fine tuned for the existence of life! In fact, the mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated that if the initial expansion rate after the big bang was altered by the absurdly small degree of 1 in 10^10123[4], life would not exist. So remarkable is it that our Universe contains these sets of values that even Stephen Hawkins concluded[5]: "...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". Since its been proven both scientifically and philosophically that the Universe must have had an absolute beginnng, the continued observations of the extremely specific conditions for life to exist strongly disconfirms naturalism. even more absurdly specific. For example, to even have a life permitting galaxy certain conditions must be met, for example the galaxy likely must be a spiral[6],[7] and must be far enough away from other galaxies that they do not interfere gravitationally with one another. Any life permitting star must be on the fringe of a spiral arm so that they are not too close to other stars, or too far to obtain many heavy elements needed for the creation of planets[8], and the star must be the right size and right distance from other stars in order to sustain life. A life permitting solar system needs to have planets certain distances away, ect and any the individual planets must be certain distances from the star and other planets and have an atmosphere and orbit consitent enough to substain life constantly. All this for just life, let alone intelligent life which constitutes .00000001% of all the species on Earth[9], a number best described as 0.Moreover since science has failed to give a reasonable explanation for the abiotic generation of life, the fine tuning of the Universe and the existence of life strongly indicate design from an intelligent and powerful mind. One can do no better than to once again quote Dr Craig: "The odds against the fine tuning occurring by accident are so iincomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced" III. MetaphysicsSmith and Kendzierski explain that the fundamental question of existence is "why are there any existents at all, actual or possible?"[10] They argue further that the question continues to why are there two existents? Or three? Or any other number? The conclusion they draw is that existents exist because there is a cause. This seems to line up with human experience and mainstream philosophy, but the conclusion they draw from this is one profound but seemingly indisputable: "the cause of multiple being is uncaused"[11]. Indeed, how could it be anything else? The implication of this is enourmous, the fact that anything at all exists requires some kind of first cause, an uncaused cause from which all other existents, actual or possible, come into being. Multiplicity (that existents exist seperately- even though two atoms may have the exact same numbers of particals, they are not the same existent, or else there would only be one atom) has to be caused-- possible existants (for example, any future children one will have) cannot actualize themselves, cannot bring themselves into being, or else they would be actual, not possible. They must be brought into being by a cause. Everything that did not at one point exist (including everything that physically exists) was brought into being by some cause ad infintum until we reach the final cause--the uncaused cause that brought all else into being. This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe, what else could have caused all other existents? An intelligent creator meets this criteria, nothing else does. The authors further explain that we can only fully indentify: "the cause of [existence], God. Short of God we only identify causes in the sense that they circumscribe the area...bad food makes on sick, but what is "bad" in bad food? Bacteria no doubt. But what is bad in them? So we go on. Thus the attempt to answer 'whodunit' is successful only to the extent indicated, but the demonstration that someboy or something within a circumbscribed area did the job can be successful, but the demonstration that God causes multiple existences is the only instance of complete identification of a cause." [emphasis mine][12]A first cause, God, is the only explanation for multiple existents. It follows from these arguments that theists are amply justified in their claim that God does indeed exist.Citations:http://goo.gl...;