There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

Saying "God is simpler," [read as “God is more complex”, see Comments] assumes all knowledge to be able to weigh God vs spontaneous or random creation. No, it does not make that assumption at all. My claim that the explanation invoking God is more complex is based on the fact that the explanation invoking God requires more assumptions but does not increase explanatory power. It requires more assumptions because it requires the additional assumption of the existence of God, and it doesn’t increase explanatory power because whatever may explain the existence of God may also explain the existence of the universe. "scientific" theories such as M Theory attempt to explain this by proposing a "before the beginning,”...Assuming a "before the beginning," takes this a step further than what is claimed about God (considering God is "at" the beginning, never before). Here, Pro claims that it is possible for something (e.g. God) to be the cause of an effect (the universe) even if it does not exist before the effect. Well, guess what else is “at” the beginning of the universe? You guessed it: the universe is at the beginning of the universe. If Pro wants to say that God is a reasonable explanation that avoids the problem of having to ask “what came before the beginning” (i.e. what was there before t=0), then it can also be said that the universe itself is a reasonable explanation that also avoids the problem of having to ask “what came before the beginning.” Therefore, to invoke God is to make an additional unnecessary step. It is to say, instead of “The Big Bang occurred at t=0”, that “The Big Bang + God occurred at t=0.” Now, before I go on bashing science... I find it amusing that Pro, in his opening statement, attempted to provide scientific evidence for three out of his four main arguments. He has also made references throughout to a variety of scientific laws, theories etc. to support his arguments. Pro, if you think science is worthy of a “bashing”, then perhaps you should refrain from attempting to back up your arguments with science. In Round 1, Pro stated that science can “approximate, sometimes with extraordinary precision”, but then in Round 2 he talks about how such approximation could never be close enough to ever come up with the correct explanation for why the universe exists. Why then, does Pro attempt to do exactly the thing that he claims is impossible to do, namely, to use science to provide an explanation (i.e. God) for why the universe exists? Furthermore, can Pro provide any approximations of God, which have the extra-extraordinary precision he demands? Can Pro even provide any approximation, any measurement, of God? He cannot. In fact, in Round 1, Pro openly admits that “... while God is undefinable, objects and their respective relationships with one another are right in front of our faces, and have quantifiable properties that we can approximate, sometimes with extraordinary precision.” This room seems to have an echo. ...the theories that deal with spontaneous and/or random creation of the Universe are based on no observations... This is simply not true. I have already given an example of how the recorded observation of quantum fluctuations indicates the possibility of “a universe from nothing”, as theoretical physicists such as Krauss call it. But can Pro point to any recorded and reproducible observations of God? He is left with anecdotes only. Since this is an argument of deductive reasoning, this is not about tackling God's existence directly, but showing its inverse (i.e. all other arguments) to be less sound...God being the causality root makes a much stronger case than spontaneous / random generation, because any theory of spontaneous / random generation must take asymmetry into account. Without asymmetry, there can be no Universe... Pro is trying to shift the burden of proof by saying that all arguments for God not existing are less sound because they are not complete (“random generation must take asymmetry into account”, “Krauss...fails to mention one important quantity – empty space!” etc. etc.), and therefore it is more likely than not that God exists, as if God is a more complete explanation to begin with. If Pro should get points for anything, it should be for knowing the names of a few of the Unsolved Problems in Physics. Unfortunately, Pro does not go much further than that. If he did, he would know that there are several potential explanations for asymmetry, and he would also know that it is absolutely possible for a universe to exist without asymmetry [1]. Krauss refers to religions as 'Fairy Tales' (roughly 3:25-3:35 on the video). Such an attack shows a level of bias on his part that could potentially alter his conclusions and the picture he attempts to draw of creation. If Krauss [2] is not worthy of citation, then who is? Michio Kaku [3]? He is also a proponent of the Universe from Nothing theory. Will he do, Pro? Or will you only accept references to the works of creationists who in 2010 received the unfortunately-named degree of “Bachelor of Science in Religion” and who have published not more than one paper, in a journal of theology [4]? How about we just let the voters decide who is and who is not a reliable reference? (49:50) Krauss talks about String Theory, which has been dismissed by most theoretical physicists http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...... shows a progression from String Theory on. I'm not sure on the date of Krauss' lecture, but it's either based on outdated information, or uninformed judgment, crushing his credibility when it comes to his opinions on God. Did you even read the page you cited? String Theory has not been dismissed at all. The page you cited simply gives an overview of the development of String Theory and how it has been refined over the years to create M-Theory. Incidentally, M-Theory was created by Edward Witten, who is widely regarded as one of the greatest living theoretical physicists [5]. Krauss lecture was in 2009, as it says in the title, so can be considered “recent” and certainly not outdated. The rest of Pro’s text amounts to “science is not perfect”. I have already done this to death above. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://sententias.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...