There is no reason to believe in god(s)

KCA You claim that P2 is unsupported, yet I supported it with the BVG Theorem. It's your burden to argue that an infinite universe exists. Plus, Hilbert's Hotel Paradox shows that an actual infinite is contradictory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that God couldn't have caused the universe since there wasn't a "before the universe." The problem with this is that you assume that Causality can't happen sans time, which is demonstrably false. Ex: the premises of the KCA have no physical relation to the contention. They do have a casual relationship. If the premises are true it causes a true conclusion. If they are false, the conclusion is too. If causality only applies within space and time, then this argument or any argument would never be sound. Minds only consist of matter? The problem with this is that it assumes that minds are like humans minds and that God would have to think in a manner that requires time. Why would I need evidence that a conscious being could be infinite? You don't point out any contradictions, so the fact that it is logically possible suffices here. I've already stated that the Hotel paradox shows that an actual infinite is contradictory. Again you don't point out any contradictions with a being that has no beginning, so the idea that it is logically possible suffices. Natural Cause? Ruled out on the basis that there were no precedent events or natural existents on which the laws of physics could apply. No demonstration that it is possible? I don't have to demonstrate that it is possible. I already demonstrated that it was necessary (refer to all the musts that I used). Fine Tuning It's your job to point out *which* assertions are false. Otherwise this objection meaningless. Where is the evidence that the constants are interdependent? Again, it is your burden to argue that natural laws dictate values, not just to say it's possible. Where is your proof that the data suggests that there is a 100% likelihood of values being what they are? There actually is research to suggest the contrary [1]. Aren't we determining the probability of such a being? Pool Table Argument This indeed does give us some information about the Cause. If it's uncaused, then it must behaved in an way that is not predetermined. It couldn't have been naturally caused. It must have been a freely acting cause. It must have existed sans the universe. I will concede the Moral Argument. Irreducible Complexity The quote isn't really the crux of my argument. The point was that it provides a problem for evolution. It does not commit the God of the Gaps fallacy. It would be if I was inferring design *only* because natural process couldn't explain them. However there is legitimate reason to think that Irreducibly Complex systems are evidence of an Intelligent Designer. That irreducible complexity is a feature of systems known to be designed, such as Your 1st source only makes the claim that, 'flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells " show that they are not "irreducibly complex."' But that is a non sequitur. Who is to say that a God didn't create the different variations? Lastly, how does similar design prove that something evolved? How come it can't prove a common designer? Where is the evidence that the fossil record supports this? Explain me this. The sea creatures with more "primitive eyes" have had just as long as other sea creatures' eyes to evolve. Why are they not as complex as other creatures' then. Another problem is that of the trilobite eye. It is one of the first eyes found in the fossil record, yet it is far from primitive [2]. Sources [1] http://www.askamathematician.com... [2] http://www.create.ab.ca...