It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

Thank you for the response. As I said in my 2nd round. I will defend two arguments: That there are good reasons to believe that God exist and that there are not sufficiently good reasons to believe God does not exist. During this round I will offer my responses to Cons rebuttals of my arguments. However, we still have yet to hear a reason to believe that God does not exist. My opponent seems to think that the creation of the universe could be something other than an abstract object, such as numbers, or a personal mind. I did not think this point would be argued so I left out the justification for it, but I will provide a justification now. My opponent even said, "The only requirement for this cause is that it exist outside of time." But, anything that is outside of time must also be changeless because if something is not changeless then we will see an infinite amount of times this "thing" changed. And as I have already pointed out an actual infinite amount of things cannot exist. Therefore, if this being must exist outside of time and must also be changeless it must also be immaterial because material things are always changing at least on the atomical and molecular levels. This being must also be personal because personhood is implied by the timelessness and immaterialness of the cause. Simply because, again, the only thing that can possess these qualities are abstract objects or unembodied minds. This being must also be unimaginably powerful since it created the world out of nothing. My opponent seems to think that the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed is an argument against God when actually it is an argument for God because if energy cannot be created than how do we have it now if not because a timeless, spaceless, personal, and powerful being made it? His next argument is that if someone has enough time they will, eventually, make something randomly happen that is highly improbable. The problem is that his entire argument is resting on the case that more than one big bang occurred. However, not only is there no evidence supporting such claim, there is actually evidence against the claim and I will provide that by restating one of my earlier claims, "Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball." Now, even if there was more than one big bang, this claim Stephen Hawkings made would apply to the first big bang that happens, because if the rate of the universe expansion was different the universe would have "collapsed into a fireball" making it impossible for any other big bangs to occur. I am not arguing the theory of evolution. I have no problem believing that God used evolution. However, my opponent must show how living organisms can come from nonliving material. The normal big bang model explains how time, space, and energy came into being, but not living organism. Darwin himself assumed a creator in his book the origin of species, "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved" (460). My opponent proceeds to raise the old "God of the Gaps" argument. Is that what these arguments do though? Are we simply putting God into the gaps in our scientific knowledge? The arguments I gave are not based upon gaps in our scientific knowledge, but rather on what the best of scientific knowledge does tell us. It was not plugging in God to fill our ignorance, but rather it is saying that the best scientific evidence we have indicates that space and time are finite in the past, that the universe did begin to exist, that it did have complex and fine tuning of the initial conditions and these point to a greater reality as its explanation. I will put it another way. The first argument, in its deductive form, states that P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause P2: the universe began to exist Therefore the universe has a cause Now in a deductive argument, if the premises are true than the conclusion follows necessarily and inescapably, and I think that the premises are both more plausible than there negations. The fine tuning argument can also be put into a deductive form P1: The initial conditions of the universe are due either to law, chance, or intelligence P2: The initial conditions are not due to chance or law Therefore they are due to intelligence Again it all depends on whether the premises are true and I believe based on the scientific evidence we have that both premises are more plausible than there negations. So again, I am not filling in God for our ignorance but rather it is saying that the best scientific evidence we have indicates that space and time are finite in the past, that the universe did begin to exist, that it did have complex and fine tuning of the initial conditions and these point to a greater reality as its explanation. Con points out that I am arguing for the Christian God. Yes, because of my own personal convictions I believe in the Christian God but in these two arguments I am only arguing for in essence a creator. Whether doctrinal statements of the Christian faith are un-ethical or not is not up for debate. Saying that God is un-ethical does not disprove his existence. I fell that I have negated all my opponents claims and if I have not, once con restates whichever claims I did not refute, I will do so in the next round. We have yet to hear a claim against the existence of God as well.