There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

Clearly, Pro wants me to address the source material. I will now do so. Let’s take a look at the original publication in which Penrose comes up with the number Pro relies on: 10^10^123 [1]. Pro defined this number as “the probability of a Universe that can support life.” Penrose, on the other hand, defines this number as “V/W”, where V = “the total phase-space volume available”, W = “original phase-space volume”, and a phase-space is “a 'space' of a large number of dimensions, one dimension for each of the coordinates Ai, x^.” Penrose derives V on the assumption that it should be represented by his estimate of the entropy of a closed universe at a Big Crunch i.e. the entropy of the universe at t =0. If one reads the entire section when Penrose derives the number 10^10^123, one finds that the words “probability”, “chance” and “life” are completely absent from the text. Why? Because the number has nothing to do with “the probability of a universe that can support life”, as Pro claims. Further, Penrose chose to do the calculations for a closed universe “for simplicity”, despite the fact that we know with a 0.5% margin for error that the universe is not closed, but flat [2]. In fact, Penrose openly states that many of the assumptions he makes in his calculations are for convenience or simplicity only (another example being the number of baryons in the universe). Pro has taken a rough estimate calculated by an accomplished scientist, created his own definition for that rough estimate (a completely different definition), then applied a couple of steps of high school mathematics to arrive at the conclusion that it is mathematically impossible for God to not exist. Pro has failed in his attempt to use showy numbers to pull the wool over our eyes. I have now shown, definitively, that Pro’s entire first argument falls flat on its face, and should be vigorously rejected by all. Pro’s “impossibility of no god” argument is dead and buried. Now, I must point out Pro’s hypocrisy in demanding that I “address the source material”. Pro cites a creationist website that cites a scientist (Penrose). When I discredit the creationist website, he says that I have to go to the source material (Penrose) if I wish to discredit anything about his argument. Why didn’t Pro cite the source material in the first place? The answer is that he did not cite the source material because he did not read the source material, and he did not read the source material because it was just too hard. After all, why cite source material when one can just search for “Penrose 10^10^123” in Google, and then copy the pre-prepared argument from any of the numerous creationist websites that turn up in the search results? And then pro has the nerve to say that he “lightened the source material for easy reading on all of our parts”. Pro, you didn’t lighten the source material, you didn’t read the source material, and to top it off, you didn’t even cite the source material. A configuration is the number of potential positions for every entity of the Universe in spacetime, as well as every possible relationship between them. 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... God does not "add" to the number of configurations... Pro blatantly contradicts himself above. The obvious problem is that whenever you add an entity, the possible number of relationships must increase, and therefore the number of possible configurations must increase. On an individual level, people are easily deceived. As a people, it makes big news when just a couple of thousand people see something that betrays their senses. Despite what scientists tell you, people are exceptionally good at differentiating between reality and deception as a whole. Also, keep in mind that more people have seen God than the inverse. To the contrary, throughout history, people as a whole have proven to be extremely susceptible to hallucinations. Take the Sun. They (e.g. the Egyptians) used to think the Sun was god. We now know that the sun is a large mass of gas. Again, I must point out the blatantly obvious fact that nobody has ever seen God. Anecdotes simply are not observations of God. Furthermore, you have stated that “Nobody knows what God is”. That one could know they had seen a particular something, without knowing what it is they saw, is simply absurd and illogical. Pro’s “multiple witnesses” argument is dead and buried. I find it sad that you did not watch the source material I presented. Dr. Dennis Polis explains this very thing... There is nothing in the laws of physics that says that the laws persist over a given time. The argument isn't that the laws would change. The argument is that the laws would simply not exist. Polis, who has a very unimpressive list of publications to his name (http://xianphil.org...), explains practically nothing. A physical law is "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present” [3]. Therefore, the laws of physics persist over time as a result of the universe persisting over time, and not the other way around, as Polis and Pro argue. The laws of physics are not causes, they are conclusions. Pro’s persistence argument is dead and buried. Let’s now look at how Pro contradicts himself when making his Causality argument. ...causes always happen prior to their effects. God is the root cause... A root cause means the cause of a... ...God is "at" the beginning, never before. If this is not illogical, then nothing is. Pro’s causality argument is dead and buried. Quantum fluctuations have not been recorded nor observed. This statement is false. They have been recorded and observed in the same sense that gravity has been recorded and observed i.e. by their effects. If you want to say that Quantum fluctuations have not been observed, then you will also have to say that gravity has not been observed. You read your source wrong. It says nothing about lack of asymmetry. First heading “Possible explanations”, second subheading “Regions of the universe where antimatter predominates”, first two sentences: “Another possible explanation of the apparent baryon asymmetry is that there are regions of the universe in which matter is dominant, and other regions of the universe in which antimatter is dominant, and these are widely separated. The problem therefore becomes a matter/antimatter separation problem, rather than a creation imbalance problem. SUMMARY I have refuted all four of Pro’s arguments. I have shown in black and white that his arguments are illogical and that he contradicts himself repeatedly. I have exposed his attempt to use fancy numbers to pull the wool over our eyes. I have pointed out that he attempts to use science to support his arguments whilst at the same time attempting to discredit science. I have demonstrated that he does not stick to his own definitions. His references are not credible. Finally, I complied with all of Pro’s requests, even when they were unreasonable. In this final round I had to resort to spoon-feeding him. I presented one simple initial argument and Pro was not able to refute it because he was not able to invoke God without adding an unnecessary extra step. Furthermore, I provided concrete examples of scientific theories, based on empirical observations, which strongly suggest the universe can and probably will be explained without invoking God. I provided only reliable references. Thank you to my opponent for creating this debate (no pun intended), and to all the readers who make it to the end and vote accordingly. [1] http://www.thiruvarunai.com... [2] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...