God probably exists

Con stated, "The BOP mainly rests on you because of the word 'Probably.'" I agree that it does, but this also means that some of the burden of proof rests on you, and you haven't provided any so far. If you believe there is a lack of evidence, then expound upon what you mean. Con stated that my example of the structures on Mars is the common deist argument of God being a sort of watchmaker. However, I didn't state that. I am saying that if structures are found on Mars, which is more likely a) that is was put there by an intelligent being or b) that it just occured through natural processes. The obvious answer is a. It has nothing to do with complexity at all; it's just, which is more likely to believe? I could even use Con's argument to support my point: P1: A watch is complex; It is man made.P2: A person is complex. C: It is made by a god.If there was a "creator" of the watch, then what is more likely about a person's origins? Would anybody honestly say that the watch composed itself through random accidental means over thousands of years? I've stated this already, and so I ask again: what is more likely about the origin of man? If we find the evolutiionary standpoint fallacious in material objects, why do we accept a random evolutionary accident over man's origins? Con states: You then begin talking about the start of life. God is unlikely.Let's say the chance of life starting is 1 in a billionWhat does this have to do with the fine-tuning argument? The facts I presented demonstrate that life is improbable througut the entire universe. Stephen Hawking states in his book A Brief History of Time that, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125).Even Richard Dawkins told Ben Stein:"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer" (http://www.theoligarch.com...)Now, while I'm not arguing aliens notice that even Richard Dawkins admits life needs a "sort of designer." The fne-tuning argument shows that God is far more likely than any other theories on abiogenesis (Big Bang, etc). Con states, "Why is a God needed to fine tune the universe?" Well, again both Dawkins and Hawking (who are not theists) have stated you can find a "designer" out of a fine-tuned universe. I am arguing that this designer is God. As for morality, Con replies: "Would you rape people if I proved to you that god doesn't exist? This argument is baseless and an opinion. I am an atheist. But I dont rape people. I dont kill. So please tell me why I am a bad person?"He misunderstands my argument. I'm not arguing that atheists are bad people. I'm stating that atheists have to find natural, evolutionary processes to explain any moralistic or altruistic deeds that people perform. Two common examples mentioned are reciprocal advantage or genetic kinship to which I provided my 3 examples above which don't fit into these categories. My last argument on Hell was not a "scare tactic" as Con tries to argue. Again, Con misunderstand my point. What is the purpose of creating a place of eternal torment for people if religion was man-made from the beginning? Heaven could be argued that it's "man-made" but what is the purpose of Hell?I shall present two more arguments in support of God's existence:1. The ancient Hebrews (writers of the Bible) were the only group of their time to argue that God created the universe out of nothing. There was no pre-existing matter available. This is a remarkable thing because all other religions had "a god" or "gods" create the univese out of pre-existing material. I mention this point because modern science agrees that the universe came out of nothing. Only the Hebrews knew this in antiquity.2. Up until the 1940s, the idea of a restoration of Israel was considered impossible. Afterall, the Germans were burning Jews in ovens. Yet, in 1948, Israel became a nation and was not destroyed by the Palestinians. I mention this because it was prophesied in the Bible. Ezekiel 36:24 says, " For I{God} will take you{Israel} from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land." Also, Jeremiah 16:14-15 says, " Therefore, behold, the days come saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of israel out of the land of Egypt; But, the lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers." I only reference the Bible because it clearly says Israel would be restored and reestablished, and they were in 1948. I place the ball in Con's court.