There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

Just to clarify, Con does have the reasons for the debate correct, and my goals, and I expect this to be scored either way on the most valid argument. But, in the case of it being considered a tie in the voter's eye, the original statement of "There is a logical argument for God" should stand. Moving on... I will rebuke your statements first, then I will address your source material (Krauss is an incredibly arrogant and biased individual, it's not easy to watch an hour of his trash talk of God!). My main argument is: an explanation for a universe not created by God is simpler and requires fewer assumptions than an explanation for a universe created by God. To add God into the equation is to add an additional, unnecessary step that requires a more complex explanation. As such, the existence of God is unlikely. To say this is to assume there is a comprehensive and sound theory of everything. Such a theory would have to encompass the theories of quantum mechanics with the theories of cosmology, something that has not been done. Saying "God is simpler," assumes all knowledge to be able to weigh God vs spontaneous or random creation. The truth is that we do not have the variables for either side to know how simple or complex either mechanism is. In fact, if you want to take this a step further, a case can be made for the inverse if you follow theoretical physics. "scientific" theories such as M Theory attempt to explain this by proposing a "before the beginning," which would account for the asymmetry of the Universe (A subject I forgot to cover in the opening, but relevant to the topic). Assuming a "before the beginning," takes this a step further than what is claimed about God (considering God is "at" the beginning, never before). It can be contended, correctly, that science has not yet provided a complete explanation as to why there is a universe. However, this does not mean that science cannot or will not provide such an explanation (as has been proven time and time again with other unsolved questions). Indeed, there are a number of scientific theories as to why there is a universe. For example, it is possible in nature to get a physical something from "nothing", as in quantum fluctuations. Given that the universe is physical something, it is possible to get a universe from "nothing" [1]. http://www.toptenz.net... List of failed (or "superseded") scientific theories. Now, before I go on bashing science, there's no doubt about its accomplishments in our everday lives and about better approximating how the world and the Universe works. But, it's important to realize that an approximation is different than an absolute. Science rarely deals with absolutes, and it takes vague laws such as thermotynamics and motion to do so. Combine the assuming guesswork of science with constraints on our ability to measure (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Planck scale limits), the chances of science ever coming up with a solution to creation, with or without God, are virtual zero. As also stated above, the theories that deal with spontaneous and/or random creation of the Universe are based on no observations, and can be argued to assume more things than those who love God assume. An argument for the existence of God is an argument for the supernatural. That is, an argument for the existence of something (an "aware creator of the universe") that is external to, and independent of, all things that exist in nature. This statement assumes that God cannot and is not part of nature, a strawman point that I never presented. Awareness, creation, and God are not external to the Universe. How you define these three things dependns on your perspective, but they are all entities, even if God is, to you, just wild imaginings (not assuming, of course). Pro must provide a potential explanation for God existing, as I have done for the universe. That is, Pro must state a potential cause for God existing, or else explain why God is exempt from being caused. Importantly, any explanation Pro gives must not be equally applicable to the universe alone. If the explanation could logically be used to explain the universe alone, then to add God into the equation is to add an unnecessary step, thereby violating Occam's razor, and showing that the existance of God is not likely. 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 is the causality root. It is from him that all other causes and effects spawned. 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 (particles, waves, and charges cancel each other out, end back where you started). Because God created the Universe with an agenda, an explanation of asymmetry can be attributed to a specific, willed cause-effect loop. *deep sigh* I guess I have to watch Krauss now ... here are some notes on his little lecture, then I will address directly. 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. (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. There is no disputing the story of the Universe and how strong it is, but this makes absolutely no case for the non-existence of God. Krauss went into very vague detail about how quantum flutuations can result in the creation of the Universe, but he fails to mention one important quantity -- empty space! This did not exist in the beginning unless, again, Krauss probably submits to vibrating strings and multiple universes to account for the fluctuations. Again, mathematical models based on zero observations, but are only there as placeholders. Issac Newton had mathematical models that worked perfectly for a long time, and were perfect for everyday experience. But, those turned out to be wrong. Mathematical models without support from measurements and direct observations should never be considered scientific theories, no matter how well they fit. CONCLUSION The atheist argument of simplicity is one of assumption, assumption to have the knowledge to guage how simple or complex a mechanism is. No one is perfect, no process is perfect. Science is an imperfect process driven largely by what everything and everyone else is driven by --- money. I will save the details of scientific flaws for another debate, but for the sake of this debate, I will simply state that it is far from perfect.