The existence of God is more probable than not.

Thanks to my opponent for attempting to present arguments, though all have long since been debunked and laughed out the philosophy circle. Lets start with KCA argument. "The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe. Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called quantum fluctuations.20 The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang." Victor Stenger God the Failed Hypothesis pg 125-126 This throws into contention that the universe actually had a beginning. So, at this point the argument is already off to a rocky start as the foundational premise the universe began to exist is in question. Another nail in the coffin to the long since debunked cosmological argument is that the premise All things that come into being have causes is learned from inductive reasoning. What have we used to get this inductive reasoning. Well we have used the parts of the universe. At this point we are then attempting to attribute a fact about the parts of the universe to the entire set called the universe. The universe after all is the set of everything that we know has come into being. My opponent can't just assert any of his religious things. Since are only evidence for things that have come into being have causes is from the parts of the set we call the universe, to actually attribute that attribute to the universe is a blatant fallacy of composition. As Alvin plantiga even said, and I am paraphrasing, the problem with the KCA argument is it falsely assumes the universe is merely one of those things that began to exist, when the universe is the set of things that began to exist. So even if we get past all of this, the only thing he has argued for is a supernatural cause, his arguments for supernatural are week. But even with that a god is only one of many supernatural causes like Maranimacons(universe creating fairy like creatures who transcend time, yet when in the universe reside on Jupiter, a magic leprechaun, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and much more) so therefore god is just one option in the dichotomy of supernatural alternatives, strange when you are only one of many alternatives, that does not make you probable without other evidence. That is not to mention that many natural causes are actually more likely being we know universes can exist, we have never found anything supernatural to exist. At the end of the day it is much more probable that a universe created our universe. Based on we don't need to make up things that have not been proven for that theory to work. His second argument from Matthew Slick, Is a variation of TAG, long since known as a god of the gaps fallacy, you can't explain logic, hence magic man in dem der sky did it. Well guess what several premises are wrong, the rules of logic are not a product of the mind, but instead are actual observations about the way the universe works. It is not a logical rule that something can't contradict itself, it is a rule of the universe, for instance a circle square can not exist because of rules of the universe, not because some mind says so. Now since we have gotten that nonsense out of the way, we can easily say that the laws of the universe had to be some way, and could just be a brute fact based on the way the universe came to be. There is no real reason to assume a mind created the laws of logic, we have observed the universe and came up with what the rules of logic are through those observations. Does Matt Slick or my opponent, even understand what logic is? Actually I should say does my opponent since Matt Slicks variation is much better then he gave. As for the The Teleological Argument, there are 3 big problems: One inductively complex things are not really proven to be designed. The majority of complex things in the universe are complex and have no evidence of a designer. Galaxies, stars, river ways, trees, animals, solar systems, plants.... the list can go on and on, would qualify as complex and since they do not have a proven designer it is ridiculous to assert inductively based on the small set of things that humans have created through design that are complex that all complex items have a design. Second problem is that it does not prove god, the argument like this would prove they have a designer, who is this designer we don't know, but my opponent wants to assert it is god. Thirdly, It also commits the fallacy of composition. It attempts to create an argument that what is true inductively of parts of the universe is true of the whole, not so much. My opponent is going to say my points do not refute his version, but in reality his version is just a reworking of the same old The Teleological Argument that has been refuted over and over again. AT the end of the day my opponent has made certain arguments, then just blatantly asserted god, He has ignored other much more probable options such as multiverses, since we know a universe can exist, a motherverse which has attributes that are timeless, so the problem of infinity. That does not even count out other supernatural cause like maranimacons, which I argue are more likely to cause something complex. Why might one ask, because of the most complex things we know are designed, well they have muliple designers not one. But, I digress, before we go any further, my opponent should take baby steps and show that something supernatural is even possible, then maybe just maybe he can work on probable.