There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

"unreliable creationist websites" The numbers come from Roger Penrose' calculations. Your demeaning opinions on these websites doesn't change the source material. There are plenty of books and articles about his lifelong body of work and accomplishments in the theoretical physics and mathematical world, including his probability for a Universe that supports life, which will produce the numbers that have been shown. Works by Roger Penrose: Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity (1972) Spinors and Space-Time: Volume 1, Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields (with Wolfgang Rindler, 1987) The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics (1989, it received the Rhone-Poulenc science book prize in 1990) Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (1994) The Nature of Space and Time (with Stephen Hawking, 1996) The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind (with Abner Shimony, Nancy Cartwright, and Stephen Hawking, 1997) White Mars or, The Mind Set Free (with Brian W. Aldiss, 1999) The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (2004) Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe (2010) Roger Penrose, by the way, claims to be an atheist (BBC Interview). LACK OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE because there can only be two versions of any given configuration: Configuration X or Configuration X+God. In this case, by Pros calculations, the probability of a universe that supports life, and in which God does feature, is the same as the probability of said universe in which God does not feature. That is, essentially zero i.e. such a universe is "impossible". This is the best case scenario for Pro. The probability stated by Penrose refers to spontaneous generation with no constraints. That is, a universe that just magically appears out of nothing. The two probabilities are completely different because of this. Keep in mind that my initial points aren't to figure out the probability of God, but to see how likely a universe is to form on its own just out of random chance. It's easy to see how the probability of a universe that supports life is ridiculous considering the ultra-tight constraints the Universe was under to begin with. Take a look at this graph: http://everyjoe.com...; This tells us that the Universe had a near-instantaneous expansion from 10-55 cubic meters all the way to roughly 1 cubic meter in less than 10-35 seconds (0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, that is) then nearly comes to a complete dead stop in comparison. In fact, if much more energy were added to the system, it would have just collapsed again. Too little matter, and it blows itself to bits. This is the constraints of inflation theory. The universe isn't even one second old, and we're already talking about an almost exact quantity requirement. Take the product of this, and having physics that are able to form planets, and then form life. Whether or not you trust the numbers of Roger Penrose, there is absolutely no doubting the number of probabilities that must come together just for anything meaningful to exist. Pro must claim that the total number of potential configurations is greater (by at least one) than the number of potential configurations in which God does not exist (and indeed Pro does make this claim). For this claim to be true, God must exist, since the existence of God is the only thing that could result in the total number of potential configurations being greater than the number of potential configurations in which God does not exist. Therefore, Pro must assume the existence of God in order to show that there is even a possibility that God exists. This is clearly not logical. My point was completely misunderstood. The number of possible configurations in this universe with the same constants, matter, and expansion rate independent of God's existence. God does not "add" to the number of configurations, The case being made with the no-god-is-impossible argument is what the probability is that God is part of this configuration vs not part of it. I'll admit, though, I could have stated something I said in my original post a little bit better. I will clarify it here: ~The number of possible configurations where God does exist. ~The number of possible configurations where God does not exist. Should have been stated like this: ~Configurations where life can exist. ~Configurations where life cannot exist. Basically, here is this argument in mathematical terms Take the only two possibilities: God created the Universe = P1 God did not create the Universe (i.e. randomly created) = P2 These are the only two possibilities, because God either did or did not create the Universe. In high school, we learn that for two possible outcomes (P1, P2), and given P1 = X, then P2 = 1 - X So, for example, the probability that God created the Universe is 0.75. The probability that God did not create the Universe is 1 - 0.75 or 0.25. Now, let's take the number of potential configurations in this Universe divided by Penrose's number, let it represent P2. We don't directly know the value of P1, but we don't need to. Assuming every possible state and alteration combination will result in life (from the above graph, that's clearly false) we get P2 = 10150 As in the opening. , dividing this number still results in 1 / 1010121 -- virtual zero. Indirectly, we then calculate the probability of the Inverse (God) by subtracting the probability of a life-sustained Universe (~0). 1 - 0 = 1 = 100% chance that this configuration was created by God, and not spontaneously generated. I don't feel that I need to go much further by addressing Pro's arguments about the probability of a universe that supports life. I have already made those arguments redundant. However, I am willing to address that argument in the next round if Pro insists that I do so. I don't personally see that is the case. Of course, I'm sure you see things differently. I guess the numbers are the only objective thing we can go by :). WITNESSES TO GOD People "see" and "witness" all kinds of unrealistic things all the time. Give me one example of when more than 100 million people have directly witnessed the same thing. On an individual level, people are easily deceived. As a people, it makes big news when just a couple of thousand people see something that betrays their senses. Despite what scientists tell you, people are exceptionally good at differentiating between reality and deception as a whole. Also, keep in mind that more people have seen God than the inverse. Based on almost every tribe, empire, and people acknowledging a creator of some sort, it's safe to say far more people have seen God than those who have not seen him. Once again, it's like the one guy tho points to the sky and calls it green. Sure, that one guy may be right amongst the thousands who disagree, but do you like the odds? But what if every single person in the world "saw" a pink elephant that is larger than Earth, and then subsequently claimed that they were not just imagining things? Does this give any weight to the claim that a pink elephant larger than Earth exists? No. A people so diverse, large, and that spans thousands of years would almost certainly not see something without there being some kind of substance to it. So, yes, it does give credit to the idea. It's certainly not proof that it is a pink elephant, but it's almost conclusive proof they aren't imagining things. The same can be said about God. Nobody knows what God is, exactly what he wants, or how to receive his messages without a very heavy amount of error. This is why there are many religions and denominations in the world. It's human ignorance and stupidity. But, does this variation discredit the core of their message that a huge majority of the population knows? That there is a creator, and he has shown himself to them? Of course not. PERSISTANCE Pro is basically saying that the laws of physics can only stay constant over time if God keeps them constant. In other words, if God does not keep the laws constant, then they would change on their own accord. He claims this is the case because the laws of physics "only apply to an exact point in time". Pro, what evidence do you have to support this claim? The laws of physics are called laws for a reason: they do not apply only at certain times; they apply all of the time. And if you want to claim that they only apply all of the time because God keeps them constant, then you must explain why the laws of physics would constantly change if God did not prevent them from changing. http://www.youtube.com... I find it sad that you did not watch the source material I presented. Dr. Dennis Polis explains this very thing. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, skip to 4:27. There is nothing in the laws of physics that says that the laws persist over a given time. The argument isn't that the laws would change. The argument is that the laws would simply not exist. In fact, the Universe (as the argument stated) persists only because God is the only solution to an infinite meta law regression which, without it, would stop the Universe from existing at all. CAUSALITY Even if every cause does not have a cause, Pro must still explain why God is not caused. Since Pro states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, Pro must claim that God did not being to exist i.e. that God has always existed. In making this claim, Pro is violating Occam's razor, since one could save an unnecessary step by saying that the universe has always existed (though perhaps not in its current form if we want to consider what existed before the Big Bang). God is the root cause, existing at the point of creation. To say "X caused God" is to say "X existed before the beginning (since causes always happen prior to their effects)" The statement "before the beginning" mutually invalidates itself. I never said what "begins to exist" has a cause. As I stated in the opening: What the law of cause and effect does NOT say is that every cause has a cause. Therefore, the Universe can be listed as a long chain of effects causing other effects (short word for this is causality). A root cause means the cause of a cause-effect chain. The argument is that God initiated this cause-effect chain. CONCLUSION Con has failed to show any mathematics to support the favorability of a Universe created randomly and/or spontaneously. The misunderstanding of using God to add extra configurations is a gaping hole in any argument to discredit the presented numbers. There is no attempt to discredit the source material, especially how it relates to the impossibility of a randomly generated universe. All of this considering I lightened the source material for easy reading on all of our parts. For the purposes of completeness, I will ask Con in his next post (if he is inclined to do so) to address source material and either show that a majority of the 1010123 possibilities can support life, or invalidate said source material. It can also wait until the summery. I will leave that up to him.