God exists

I will present my case using a three pronged argument 1. The argument from probability 2. The argument from philosophy 3. The argument from science. subpoint A As to probability, When discussing the probability of the existence of a life supporting universe, One needs to consider all of the variables working against life. Indeed, The odds of even the universe as we know it existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that our existence appears to defy the laws of mathematics. For example, We now know that electromagnetism separated from the other fundamental forces roughly ten picoseconds after the Universe as we know it came into being. Had the electromagnetic force been off by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction, Stars could not form and the universe would not exist. Subpoint B. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Clarendon Press, 2014. Ockhams razor would indicate the existence of god via probability. Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, The force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, Then one is only postulating one thing, The force; there is, By definition, Nothing that constrains an infinite force. For this reason, Scientists constructing theories will, Unless there is good reason not to, Prefer to use zeroes or infinities in those theories. Scientists recognize that an infinite force is intrinsically more probable than any great but finite force. This methodology, Swinburne suggests, Can be generalized; an infinite being, He urges, Is the most probable kind of being. Ockham"s razor, If he is correct, Far from implying that God"s existence is less likely than any other explanatory hypothesis, Implies that it is more likely than any other explanatory hypothesis; the intrinsic probability of theism is relatively high. Moving on to philosophy. subpoint A objective morality suggests the existence of God. Some things in this world are good, Some are evil. If objective moral reality exists, Then moral law exists, If moral law exists then we must posit the existence of an objective moral lawgiver. Neither the individual, Society, Or nature has the capacity to bestow upon anything moral objectivity. Subpoint B The Aristotelian unmoved mover suggests the existence of God. No matter can justify its own existence. Everything that exists has something with the causal power to bring it into existence. Everything that is, Except for the first cause. The very first thing to ever cause a reaction must be primordial. To deny this fact places the timeline into a state of infinite regression which makes no mathematical or logical sense. IE what caused that? Then what caused that? Etc. Subpoint C Pascals wager. The following isn't necessarily a proof for god but rather a defense of Theism. Pascals wager states that it is a wiser logical choice to believe in god for the following reason: If I choose to believe in god then one of two things can happen 1. I'm right and I get to go to heaven. 2. I'm wrong and nothing happens. On the other hand, If I choose to not believe in God one of two things can happen: 1. I'm right and nothing happens. 2. I'm wrong and I go to Hell. It's clear that the first option is the better choice because there is no room for something horrifically bad to happen which is not true of the second choice. Next the argument from science. The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, As well as with chemistry and biology. " The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, And the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, The coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, They are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, As nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, The coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity. " Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. " Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content, " experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role. " The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, Hypothesis, Experiments, And conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, It will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, Which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, They conclude that such structures were designed. This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, The more we discover about the cell, The more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, Replete with motors, Powerhouses, Garbage disposals, Guarded gates, Transportation corridors, And most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won't function unless their basic machinery is intact, So how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, Successive, Slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, And microbiological machines require an engineer, And genetically encoded programs require a programmer, Increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design. While there are more arguments I could pose, I don't have the characters to due them justice. I may bring them up later. Good luck.