It is probable for God to exist

The argument that the universe must have a supernatural origin has been documented in peer-reviewed science journals. For example, "The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe," by William Lane Craig, has been peer-reviewed and therefore can be accepted by the scientific community as good evidence. http://www.leaderu.com... In this article Criag argues that everything which has a beginning must have a cause, the universe began and therefore was caused. But the beginning of the universe is the beginning of both time and space, therefore, the cause of the universe must be spaceless and timeless. It cannot be a set of necessary physical conditions, for such a cause could not exist independent of its effects, therefore, a conscious cause would be the only rational explanation in the absence of more reasonable alternatives. Criag shows all other models of the universe's origin wanting, which is why the Big Bang model is the one accepted by most astrophysicists today in comparison to the others. I would also personally add, that the universe itself is all of nature, so any cause of the universe would be literally "outside nature," would by definition would be "supernatural." Not bounded by natural law. Hence, we have good evidence for a timeless, spaceless creator of the universe. Another peer-reviewed article, this time, of a historical nature, is "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," also by William Criag. http://www.google.com... Here he shows that the gospels are more valuable as historical documents in comparison to the classical writings of Greece and Rome for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are written by eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the events, and date back to within the first generation of the events, not allowing sufficient time for legends to replace the core historical facts. The vast majority of New Testament scholars today accept as historical Jesus' death, his burial by Joseph of Arimethea, his disciples saw appearances of him alive after his crucifiction, and the fact of the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection. "I want to emphasize that I am not talking about evangelical or conservative scholars only, but about the broad spectrum of New Testament critics who teach at secular universities and non-evangelical seminaries. Amazing as it may seem, most of them have come to regard as historical the basic facts which support the resurrection of Jesus." http://www.cbn.com... All other attempts to explain away these facts have been rejected by contemporary New Testament scholarship, leaving resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation of these four facts. Con must either deny one or more of these four facts, or present a better explanation than that God raised Jesus from the dead. Only the resurrection explains all the data, and yet, this entails that God exists. The existence of intelligent life depends upon a delicate and complex balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable? Well, the answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed into a hot fireball. (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 123) P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. (P. C. W. Davies, Other Worlds (London: Dent, 1980), pp. 160-161, 168-169) [He also] estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 raised to the 100th power would have prevented a life-permitting universe. (P. C. W. Davies, "The Anthropic Principle," in Particle and Nuclear Physics 10 (1983): 28) There are around 50 such constants and quantities present in the Big Bang which must be finely tuned for the universe to sustain life. And it's not just each quantity which must be finely tuned; their ratios to each other must also be exquisitely finely tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds cry out for a rational cause. Anything that has a chance less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening by chance, therefore, the origin of the universe could not have been by chance, and in the absence of any evidence it's fine-tuning is due to physical necessity, it stands as good evidence of a creator for the universe, but this would mean that God exists. In this debate, I'm not just arguing that any type of god exists, but rather, that the God of the Bible exists. As such, I must allow the pages of the Bible to tell me what God is like. Now Con might have successfully refuted "one" of the traditional interpretations of "in what sense" God is omnipotent, but has he refuted the Biblical account of what way God possesses this attribute? I don't think he has. Terms are to be understood in the context in which they were given, otherwise, it leads to contradiction. For example; the Bible says "thou shalt not kill." (Exo 20:13) Did the person who wrote that mean that under no circumstances should one kill at all? Of course not, for it was given in the context of a body of laws which gave the death penalty for various sins, as well as authorizing the killing of animals. (Lev 20:11-13; Num 28:3-4) So in its original context, "kill" meant "murder," that is, the unlawful taking of life, but this doesn't mean there were not also lawful takings of life permitted by that law of Moses. A similar thing could be said about God being omnipotent. The Bible does teach is that God is all-powerful only within the context of his own nature. So being all-powerful, that is, having unlimited power to do anything he wants, doesn't mean he can do anything at all. The Bible says outright that God "cannot" lie. (Titus 1:2) So that's at least one thing God can't do; so Biblical omnipotence is not the ability to do anything at all, but rather, God having unlimited power to do what is in accord with his own nature. In fact, it is irrational to think that having any amount of "power" could change one's nature so that one is able to do anything at all. For example, how much power do you have to charge a battery with before it turns into a fish? It won't ever do that even if it had eternal power to light all the flash lights, bulbs, and radios in the world forever. So too, no amount of power can give God abilities outside his nature. So God does have limitations imposed by his own nature. He can't break a promise, for example, yet this doesn't diminish his power. He still is omnipotent, all-powerful, but he is limited by his nature in "how" he uses this eternal power. So it is fallacious to use the definition of omnipotence as being "a being who can do anything whatsoever," for the Bible does not describe God in such a way. Now that I have clarified my understanding of God's omnipotence, I shall proceed to rebut his opening argument in the next round.