God probably does not exist.

The argument is ""God Probably does not exist"". You have put forward one argument that suggests that the universe evolves and there was no start. At each point the ""new state of the universe is totally dependent on the previous state"" thus making a continues line which has no start. You state Einstein"s theory of general relativity as proof for your theory. That suggests god does not exist however Einstein himself said. ""Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe " a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."" (1) You state that that "" The FLRW metric describes a universe that is isotropic, homogeneous, and expanding. These metrics also state that every state of time is half-open. [7][8] If every state of time is half-open, then this creates problems for a first state of time. A first state of time has a minimum value and a maximum value However, this contradicts the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity tells us that every state of time must have no minimum value, but a maximum value. Therefore, the theory of relativity tells us that a first state of time does not exist. Not only that, but the existence of a first state of time would actually be impossible!"" . Isn"t it also equally possible the laws that govern our universe today only came into effect once our universe had been created ?. The mathematical models we use to describe our universe today assume an infinite amount of time and do not account for the physical factors of the universe. Such as the big bang but are based on the assumption that our universe has been here in its current form since eternity or only changes we know about have happened and we have accounted for them correctly . To illustrate my point take the orbit of mercury you could use a mathematical model to predict at what point in the orbit mercury would be in exactly 3000 trillion years into the future. This has one major flaw mercury will not be orbiting the sun in 3000 trillion years because the sun will no longer be there this is one example of the mathematical model not taking into account the physical factors. (2) Another Major problem with all scientific theory is we as humans have only in the past 500 years been able to make meaningful observations. Our theory"s and ideas are solely based on what we have witnessed over a relatively short piece of time we have no way of knowing what has happened in the past.(3) We have next to no understanding of dark matter the matter we observe is predicted to only be 5 % of the total matter in the universe and therefore 95 % is either dark matter of dark energy. No current model on the evolution of our universe has provided a credible proven reason for this. (4) Why is this relevant to the debate? It shows that mathematical models such as the one provided by my opponent struggle account for physical changes in our universe, for example the big bang furthermore we have not observed all changes in our universe therefore we cannot account for them in our models. My argument also suggests that everything we observer today is a result of the big bang and therefore could not of existed before hand and so the model proposed by my opponent is not valid if the laws of physics only came into effect after the big bang. Our lack of understanding of past events in the universe makes it impossible to correctly predict the future or past. I therefore propose that it is impossible and wrong for anyone to state "" god probably does not exist"". 1)http://josephranseth.hubpages.com...- 2)http://www.bbc.co.uk... 3) http://www.quora.com... 4) http://science.nasa.gov...