Atheism Debate

The universe MAY be infinite, but we can only see a finite section of it due to the finite speed of light. We can only see those parts from which light has had time to reach us since the beginning of the universe - which means we can (in theory) see a spherical universe with radius of about 47 billion light years. If I gave you some time to think about that I'm sure that you would come up with the following conclusion - "that means that the universe must have expanded faster than the speed of light at some point", which appears to violate special relativity. In fact that is what is thought to have happened, during a period called "inflation", and it does not violate special relativity since it is not a spatial motion, but the expansion of space itself. Which sets up an argument about time dilation that I can make later if the need arises. It also shows that we don't actually know that the Universe is infinite only that we haven't seen all of it yet. Back to the question: if the universe is infinite beyond our horizon, is there an infinite number of potentially life-supporting planets? If there is a finite probability of something happening (ie. a planet forming around a star, or a galaxy forming), then in an infinite universe there will be an infinite number of that thing. So there would be an infinite number of galaxies and planets in an infinite universe. If however there is an infinitesimal probability of something happening, then in an infinite universe there would only be a finite number of those things. Since I have mathematically proven that the existence of a life-supporting planet is infinitesimal mathematics shows that even in an infinite Universe there would only be a finite number of, or even only one, life-supporting planets. I can empirically show that my arguments are true but you must make the assumption of a multiverse and the defiance of probability. thus I invoke Occam's Razor. As for your next argument, I want to point out that I don't deny evolution. It happens only a fool says otherwise. However, if you look back at my argument, you see that even the most basic parts of the biological machinery have this irreducible complexity and CSI. This irreducible complexity has been found in the Bacterial Flagellum. Since I have many more characters I would like to introduce a new argument, that of the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover. The original cause. Let's explain it in this axiom. 1. Everything that exists has a cause 2. The Universe exists 3. the universe must have had a cause. 4. the first effect that created the universe must have had a cause 5. the first cause had no cause before it. 6. the first cause is primordial. Put simply, the whatever caused the universe, or set in motion the series of causes and effects that led to the creation of the universe, by virtue of being the first, must have had no cause. to deny this places a timeline in a state of infinite regression that makes no mathematical or logical sense. This first cause, whatever it may be is what we call God. While this does not prove any specific religion, nor does it prove in itself intelligent design, it does provide evidence for a primordial force that when coupled with my previous arguments strongly supports the existence of a creator.