The Probability of the Existence of God

My apologies to you, RationalMadman, but it is a little bit difficult to tell whether or not you are trolling, as you have thus far confronted me with blanket statements that have been made with absolutely no support. Fault me for resorting to an ad hominem if you must, but I cannot debate with someone who is not actually debating back. I asked you to elaborate on one of your points, which you did not; furthermore, as I stated in the beginning, "In rounds 3 and 4, we engage in a hack-and-slash free-for-all involving rebuttals and other supporting arguments. " In rounds 3 and 4, you did neither of these things. So if my last response sounded as though it was a little bit on the "biting" side, you have to understand what I'm actually asking you to do here. You've got one last round to kick yourself into gear: so please show enough respect to put in the time and care that this debate deserves. As this is the final round, I will address this statement that you have made twice now, and proceed to reiterate my original argument. What you have claimed is that without an intelligent creator (i. e. God), it is not possible for anything to exist. This equates to stating that it is necessarily the case that an intelligent creator is to credit for the source of our existence. If my opponent were to offer an argument supporting this claim, I would gladly take this argument on, but unfortunately all that I can do from here is simply resort to the argument that I proposed before: with the exception of the Cogito Ergo Sum, and certain mathematical truths, we cannot be 100% certain of anything. Therefore, when it comes to the origin of the universe (provided that there is one and that the universe does not have an infinite history), we cannot be 100% certain of any one answer. Some may be hasty enough as to claim that the probability of an intelligent creator at the beginning of the universe is 50/50, as though we are dealing with a two-sided coin: where heads would represent God, tails would represent "no God. " But this is would be a gross misinterpretation of the law of the excluded middle. Just because the law of the excluded middle leaves us with two possibilities, this does not imply that each possibility is equally likely. For example, either the sun is shining in Omaha Nebraska, or it's not. Provided that we trust our senses, we can say which of these two possibilities is more likely. So why is the issue of divine creation not a matter of 50/50 chance? It's for the very reason that I explained before. The possibilities seem borderline endless, and we will never know precisely which answer is correct. If every entity in the universe were to exhibit intelligence, then it seems rather likely that the source of the universe would exhibit intelligence as well, but this simply is not the case: we have a universe that is packed full of incredibly diverse entities, each of which are equally as viable as God if we let our imagines run equally as wild. So the bottom line is this: a divine creator is no less likely then any other possibility, but given the seemingly endless amount of possibilities, it is extremely unlikely that God would be the correct answer. To use my metaphor from earlier, betting on divine creation would be like rolling a bazillion-sided die and placing all of your bets on the number, "7. "With that said, I yield back the remainder of my space and leave the final statement to RationalMadman.