It is probable that God exists

Thank you again to thett3 for such an excellent challenge! Summary of flaws in Pro"s argument 1.Pro asserts that infinity is impossible, then "solves" the problem with" an infinity. a.A "God" must be infinite in i.Time ii.Power iii.Knowledge iv.Other 2.Pro claims the universe came from "absolutely nothing" yet we cannot know what came before a few moments after the big bang. 3.Pro tried to further explain the universe with something more complicated that cannot be understood. This is not an explanation; this is Occam"s razor at its finest. 4.Pro attempts to use the complexity argument to justify something that is infinity complex. 5.Pro claims there is a mind in some abstract existence with no possible proof, empirical evidence, or even an explanation as to what the "mind" is. 6.Pro tries to use the law of cause and effect to say everything needs a cause; then "defines" a "First Cause" that violates the law. a.Why can"t the universe before the big bang not need a cause instead? b.Why does it have to be a "mind" that is intelligent? 7. Why doesn't it have to follow logic, or science, or (assuming infinite power) math when everything else does? When you propose a solution that doesn"t need to follow logic, not only is the solution itself illogical, your proposal is also illogical. Arguments submitted by con not responded to or challenged by pro: 1.Scientifically you cannot say whether what was before this point (or before the Big Bang), began to exist or not. Did what was before "begin to exist?" How do you know if it did? 2.Pro: "Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point" from literally nothing at the big bang." a.Con, "This is not accurate." 3."The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds." a. How do you draw this conclusion? "Con accepts premise one. " What I said was, "For the sake of argument, let us assume this is true for the moment as you are specifically applying this for P2." This is not full acceptance; it is temporary to make points. "Premise two stands as well" because all we have to speculate on is the physical Universe." This was to show that the causality argument you make can only be empirically demonstrated to shortly after the big bang. Anything before that is conjecture. Anything before that is, by your words, "speculation." " Secondly Con makes no substantive response to the philosophical argument against an infinite number of past events, any and all Universes are finite. " Again: an eternal universe is not the same as an infinite universe. Your argument against infinities only argues against your infinite "God." "Nonetheless, Con concedes that our Universe *did* have a cause." I temporarily accept P1 to make arguments. I then offer a modification to P2 which I accept. You cannot possible come to the conclusion that whatever was there, moments before the big bang, was an intelligent, all power God that defies all logic. " Con doesn't give any logically coherent explanation for this cause (more on this later). " Although I have indeed offered several proposals from respected scientists in the field, it is not my obligation in this debate to offer answers, only to challenge yours. "Cons only response to the impossibility of infinity doesn't actually address the issue..." Again, you merely excuse "God" from your infinity argument by stating he is "timeless." If this makes no sense in terms events, this makes no sense in terms of "God." If God is timeless, when did he decide to start the universe? "Cons only objection to my infinity argument" Con makes no attempt to explain how infinity is possible "" Exactly correct. An infinite "God" is just as absurd. I"m not trying to prove infinity, you are trying to disprove it. But you are then claiming an infinite God. So, does infinite exist or doesn"t it? If it does, then whatever universe existed before 13.75 billion years ago could be infinite. If it doesn"t, God, by definition of the infinite argument, cannot exist. " Thus the problems posed by infinity stand and essentially destroy any naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the Universe save for something definitionally outside of the constructs of time, like God. If theres another explanation Con must offer it, if not you vote Pro. " Fair enough, I will propose one. I define the universe (the totality of existence) that was before the point 13.75 billion years ago, to be outside the constructs of time. Furthermore, we cannot ever understand it or measure it or prove it was there due to the nature of the Big Bang that this universe spawned off. This universe has all of the same qualities you attribute to God (no cause, outside the constructs of time, infinite power) except for being Sentient. I repeat: This universe I"m "defining" has all the qualities you attribute to "God," except sentience. I have now offered an explanation that is entirely as reasonable as yours. "Con argues that I haven't shown what existed before the big bang"the argument still stands." You cannot show what existed before the big bang. You can only "speculate," as you have said. "(like infinity being impossible)" Infinity being impossible = infinite God being impossible. "but moreover Cons response that Relativity breaks down"" Extrapolating relativity back in time results in a singularity and doesn"t factor in Quantum Physics, this is why it is flawed. "Therefore, the Universe both scientifically and philsophically did have an absolute beginning"" Unless the God you propose is infinite, which you claim is an impossibility, "God" had to have an absolute beginning. Then we must again ask: "If there is a "God" what caused this "God?" "it simply does not. All that needs to be understood is that the first cause was definitionally uncaused; and indeed given that the law of cause/effect is valid and Con condeded that the Universe was caused, the cause literally could not be anything except uncaused."" Again, I will "define" the universe before the one that began 13.75 Billion years ago to be uncaused. There was a cause immediately before 13.75 billion years ago. "I'm not advocating a God of infinite power"" Power is energy per time or "Energy / time." You move the time value to infinite and anything other than infinite energy goes to zero. This is not philosophy, this is science and math. An infinite God must have infinite power for infinite time. (Two infinites) "2. Even if I was there's no contradiction because "power" in the sense that describes God cannot be understood or quantified so it's irrelevant." If you are proposing something that "cannot be undersood, then why bother proposing it? What can it possibly explain? Nothing. If it cannot be understood, how are you trying to explain or propose it? You cannot understand it by your own admission. "He does however offer an interesting thought experiment and one I admit I struggled with for a while, but ultimately I have to agree with Con that my existence can be attributed simply to chance," Agreed. "but this has no relation to the argument because God can explain this abnormality but more importantly it only really to the Universe because, unlike people, the Universe only had one beginning and one chance to be life sustaining"" The universe we observe. Despite the odds, everything that has happened, happened. "Con gives no secular explanation for this, so you automatically prefer the worldview that explains these things--that is, theism."" It is the way it is for no "reason" at all. There doesn"t have to be a reason. Call it random chance. You can even attribute the remarkable odds to Quantum Physics and a possible "Multi-verse" that expresses all other possible scenarios. Whether I have an explanation or not, the lack of my explanation does not justify your explanation. This is why you have the BOP, not me.