The existence of God is more probable than not.

Did my opponent even bother to readthe argument against the uncaused cause? I made no such claims about the universe, as a matter of fact I have said the universe could easily be just a brute fact or eternal. My opponent also fails quite sadly to grasp the fallacy of composition. Here is why this argument is the fallacy of composition. I will start by asking how do we know that all things that began to exist have a cause. Well let me explain, we have studied the parts of the universe, objects and concepts in the universe, and have discovered that they seem to have a cause. So, we have drawn this conclusion from inductive reasoning based on parts of the universe. Then the fallacy blatantly attributes what we have learned from the parts of the universe, to the whole set the universe. Here is a basic syllogism: If you learn something from the parts of a set and attribute it to the whole you have committed the fallacy of composition We have learned from the parts of the universe that all things that began to exist have a cause, then the kalams tries to attribute this to the universe. Therefore Kalams commits the fallacy of composition. More on this a little later. Next, it s funny that my opponent says the big bang theory is debunked and when you click his amazing link for sources it is not there. Making up stuff much? Last part of Kalams, he addresses one supernatural cause, ignoring all the other ones. Even this is a ridiculous assertion. My opponent rules out the invisible pink unicorn based on a law of logic? Strange laws of logic are functions of the universe and he even argues a mind made logic earlier. Therefore why would the mind that created logic have to actually be logical. He thinks he has made some form of reductio ad absurdum argument to the invisible pink unicorn, but he fails to understand that the invisible pink unicorn could be invisible while existing within our universe but wholly pink in another universe that she also exists in. The IPU still stands in the dichotomy. Unless of course my opponent wants to argue that the being who he thinks created this universe could not create another, and exist in both. Therefore my opponent has failed to even remotely address the other dichotomy of possible causes of the universe or that the universe could be a brute fact. As for TAG My opponent goes onto to blatantly assert the laws of logic do not depend on the laws of the universe. Lets see our universe does not have an extra dimension. Imagine a universe with a 4th dimension. Would the law of noncontradiction always stand? No, in one dimension something could be a square while in the other it would be a circle. Therefore the laws of logic are only relevant in our universe. Just because my opponents imagination is limited in what a universe could look like does not mean other universes could not exist with completely different laws of logic. All of the laws of logic have been learned from our observation of this universe and its characteristics, it is ridiculous to say otherwise, because we have observed no other universes. Now onto my opponents attempts at sounding intelligent on the Teleogical Argument. He first gives an example of the coke bottle. Well let me ask my opponent this, why are we more like a coke bottle, with a known designer, and not more like a solar system, which you are trying to prove has a designer, but no such designer has been shown. Oh thats right you are using confirmation bias and observing things that you want to appear designed to be designed. There is certainly more to a coke bottle that makes it known that it is designed then complexity. The funny thing is the mere possibility that evolution is true eliminates the idea that anything complex must be designed. The idea of design actually doesn't solve anything, since a designer would have to have a complex mind and the same problem would occur. Actually evolution solves the problem much neater, as it doesn't grow the problems butt quite simply put it simplifies things so the causes need to be less and less extravagant. A god would need a bigger explanation for why it appears to have purpose, then a single cell needs an explanation. Therefore the argument solves nothng. I continue to be shocked as I read more and more people on this board who think they can discuss philosophy and don't even understand fallacies. Let me explain something, again for the umpteenth hundreth time, for you people. A informal fallacy means that the premises do not guarantee the conclusion or are not enough to warrant the conclusion. Meaning that the argument is insufficient means to justify the claim. tt does not mean the conclusion is false meaning that almost all formal fallacies will sometimes be true. The problem is to believe the conclusion based on the fallacy is bad reasoning. Why do you people not understand that, that is fallacy of fallacies. An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion http://en.wikipedia.org... So if my opponent wants to admit his arguments are informal fallacies then we have established that his premises do not meet the requirements to merit the conclusion. As for some arguments against gods probability, well I have already established that the dichotomy of answers to what caused the universe are: Maranimacons, IPU, God, A Leprechaun, Multiverses, a motherverse(a large timeless eternal universe that creates universes), and more. If we accept all as equal, which I have given reasons earlier which my opponent ignored for why several are more probable, then god is a 1 in 6 chance. That is improbable as probable would mean more likely then not. Gods attributes as omniscient and omnibonevolent cause contradictions. For instance the basic rock contradiction. It is interesting that my opponent would go there as most sophisticated theologians have thrown out the omni attributes in exchange for maximally great to avoid this problem. This problem is not as easily solved as the unicorns as the omnis have the word all, so therefore alternate dimensions cannot solve the contradiction, because god would have to be able to both pick up a rock and make a rock to large in all possible dimensions. God would have to be able to do something he doesn't know he is going to do in advance, but that contradicts omnibenevolence. It may be possible in other unverses, but alas that does not matter, as god is all powerful and all knowing which would imply he could somehow do this, in this universe. That is not what we call probable.