God exists

Argument 1 Ok, fair enough. You said, basically, that every thing in universe has a cause. You simply switched 'cause' for 'contingent'. I pointed out that quantum fluctuations have no apparent cause, to which you replied that universe is its cause. Well yeah, that is technically correct. Everything that exists has one cause-universe. My problem is that this is too broad explanation. Thats like saying -'why things burn?' -'well because universe caused them to burn'. -'Why things attract each other?' -'well because universe caused them to attract'. You could reply like this to all questions, but, with all my respect, such answers seem ridiculous to me. You are not explaining what, in said universe, make things to burn or to attract each other. If you could provide me with specific cause for quantum fluctuations, I would agree that everything (as far as we know) has a cause. As far as my little knowledge in physics goes, scientists still dont know what is cause for quantum fluctuations, therefore you cant say that everything must have cause. Argument 2 Thank you for granting me that virtual particles do exist. 'Firstly, they can only occur when either in an electric or magnetic field ' Yes, and fire can only occur in presence of oxygen, but oxygen is not cause for fire. Sound can occur only in presence of some sort of medium, like air, but this medium is not cause for sound-your vocal cords are. You are mixing 'cause' with 'requirement'. The fact that particles pop into existence only in magnetic or electric field, does not lead to conclusion that this electromagnetic field is a cause rather than requirement. ' they are caused by other particles that do exist' Virtual particles pop into existence in vacum, where no other observable particles exist. While my knowledge of this is too poor to say that they do not pop into existence in environment where other particles are present, I still know for a fact that virtual particles do pop into existence in vacum, where no other particles are present, therefore other particles cannot be cause for virtual ones. Argument 3 'Your rebuttal would only apply if there is a multiverse and ours was the one out of billions' So when you said that the more complex structure is the less likely it is for it to occur all on its own, you were not referring to planets and life but to universe? Our universe is so large, so that it is bound that some planets will be in exact position, subjects of exact conditions for life to be possible. If you, on other hand, claim that universe itself is so complex so that it simply could not exist all on its own, I will counter that by saying that universe is necessary product of laws of physics. Provided thats laws A,B,C,D,E,etc. exist, universe simply must exist. Now if you attempt to argue about why those laws and constants are exactly like they are, then I will have nothing to offer. Noone knows why speed of light is exactly like this and not different. This only means that we do not know. From 'not known' you cannot logically conclude that 'god therefore exists'. That would be simply 'god of gaps fallacy' And yes, while its true that laws were created in big bang, these laws themselves break down at singularity. None of those laws can explain what exactly happens at singularity. This must be taken into consideration when talking about singularity. Argument 4 Now this is where it gets interesting. 'However this definition can be used to prove that God exists, because a perfect being must necessarily be perfect in all aspects.' Unless this perfect being doesnt exist. If perfect being would exist, then it would be perfect (hence the name 'perfect being'). But if this perfect being doesnt exist, then it simply doesnt. You are assuming from start that this perfect being exists and so, if you are correct, then it is a perfect being and therefore must exist. The very idea that such being does exist is what needs to be proven. 'Existence is an aspect so a perfect being must have perfect existence. Perfect existence = existence in reality.' Yes, but again, thats only assuming that perfect being does exist. If perfect being doesnt exist, then it cant have perfect existence, because it doesnt exist. You are, again, assuming before-hand that god exists. 'Therefore, by definition, a perfect being must exist. It cannot not exist.' Unless it doesnt exist. In which case it simply doesnt. I am sorry for my previous reply, where I asserted that your argument will be rejected by me. It is not my place to accept or reject your arguments. I can only reply/answer to them. It is up for voters to accept/reject arguments and evaluate us. Apologies for all the disconvenience.