It is probable that God exists

I am absolutely OK with your rules. It is refreshing to argue this topic without the flood of bible quotes. I also fully accept that the burden of proof lies on your side and I will therefore mostly respond to your case, even though I think there are arguments, which are mostly empirical, opposing the existence of god. I just want to ask a short and clear specification as to whether you are arguing for a deistic or theistic god, as this has an impact on the argumentation. From your arguments I think it is a deistic god you are arguing. Now to your arguments. You start of with the cosmological argument according to Aquinas, which describes a infinite regress, where you need god to terminate it. Now here are several problems. First the overall description of causality, which uses the A theory of time. This view of time even though in some way possible isn"t that well compatible with our observation of the universe. Let me explain the essential parts. There are A and B theory of time. The A theory says in general that there is a flow of time with a past, present and future in the sense, that the past doesn"t exist anymore and the future hasn"t started to exist. This doesn"t fit in with the notion of relativity of time (Einstein"s great work), as it supposes that time for different observers has relative different pace, which is inconsistent if the past cease to exist. To get a theory compatible with that, the B theory was devised and is now accepted. It say that time can be viewed as a fourth dimension and therefore the past is as much existing as the future and present is, as it is just like a travel through time, which is comparable to the travel through space. This would explain well the established fact of relativity and it also fits that time is established as the increase in entropy. There has been the attempt to reconcile A theory of time with relativity through saying that there is one right frame of time and all others are relative to that illusory. Now what would that right frame be? In a theistic explanation it could only be god. But now we are running into a case of circular reasoning. You need the A theory of time to establish causality, which in turn is used to establish god. But to use A theory of time you need to presuppose god, which makes it circular. Why does causality not work under a B theory of time you might ask? This is easily answered by a description that Dr. Craig uses. If time is a fourth dimension, which is fitting to both relativity and for example the very promising string theory, it can be handled as those we already call dimensions. Lets therefore compare the two as we look at a line. A line has a start and an end, but you wouldn"t say that the line comes into existence at one of the edges, as the line exist unimportant as to where you are. Time fits into the same description. If something starts it doesn"t actually begin to exist but rather we come there on our travel through time. Therefore to say something is caused has no real meaning. This doesn"t say that we can"t view our world in the concept of causality, but rather that its basis aren"t fitting. Now a second point: You say that the universe had a cause, which was god. You take this thought that everything must have a cause from the experience inside the universe. But now there comes the question whether our observation of the causality in the universe actually concerns with "beginning to exist". If we see something made from a new star in a supernova to the bike, which is manufactured, we aren"t observing the beginning of existence being caused, but rather the reassembly of matter into a new shape which follows a seeming cause. If we view it in this way, we have to conclude that there isn"t actually any observation of anything being caused to begin to exist, but rather just the observation of the reassembly of matter. We can go with this back to the beginning of the universe, were we have the only point where something, if we accept that it even had a beginning (which can be well doubted), began to exist. Therefore we have now observation that this isn"t possible to happen ex nihilo. The next concern is with the way you view "causality" and the cherry picking you do. You view it as though everything in the universe has a cause (in quantum mechanics this isn"t that clear, but I grand you for now the benefit of the doubt). The thing is that besides everything having an efficient cause, which is the mover you describe, we also observe everything having a material cause. The problem is that by definition an immaterial god can"t produce a material cause. Therefore you have just picked out the efficient cause fitting to your got and applied it to the universe, while leaving out the material one which is just as important and observed. Therefore I think we can neither say that everything has a cause, nor that god would even fit into the description needed for such a cause. Now if you say, that it works just because god is supernatural this undermines your following part about the physical laws, because If he as you say outside of physics he can"t be material to cause anything. To come to the teleological argument you bring up, I have several problems with this one as well. First you say that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. The problem is that this claim directly contradicts everything we know of the universe, as the universe doesn"t even in the slightest appear to be fine-tuned for our existence. The absolute vast majority (all aside from this tiny speck of dust we call earth) the universe is absolutely not habitable for life and even the earth doesn"t fulfill this requirement. Additionally you say that even with the slightest change in the fundamental constants of physics, life would be impossible, but the only thing we can say is that life as we know it would be impossible. As long as you can"t give a clear definition of life and what allows for it to exist, you can"t make the claim that other constants would make it impossible in another form. Then you explain that if we see something having designed information such as a watch, we refer to the best explanation and conclude it is designed. The problem is that the universe is not at all similar to a clock as it is neither well tuned nor obviously designed. Our whole universe is a factory of information, which just arises from the laws of nature. For example if you see a meteorite hit a surface, and it leaves a crater, which has a lot of information and also could be said to be fine-tuned for if occurring due to a meteorite, still no one would infer that this crater has been created. We see therefore that natural laws are very well capable to build information which are similarly to the universe seemingly not designed. In fact they are even able to account for the big bang. If we look at string theory for example and see it as the most promising way forward in physics, it allows us to account for the seemingly inconceivable accuracy by which the physical constants are "tuned", as string theory allows for 10^500 different constitutions and would therefore give the possibility to account for many different values of these constants. This combines with the concept of the multiverse building new universes all the time, where string theory gives the different possible values needed to account for the "finely-tuned" constants, allows us to account for the universe. Whether they even are finely tuned can be doubted if we for example look at the entropy of the early universe, which was thought to be of the likelihood of 1 in 10^12 but it is after looking into the equations actually 1. We can"t expect that to occur with all of the constants, but we have the hope for a naturalistic explanation fitting the data. As according to all of our observations of the universe we can"t find anything supernatural, the thought to go to a supernatural explanation to be the best is in light, that there are promising ways to account for the phenomena (which isn"t even certain), not a wise move. I can"t say that we already know it all, but similar to the origin of the laws of physics, which could well be due to necessity as well as to a variable bringing it about in the multiverse, we have good reasons to believe that in a subject as young as cosmology we have good prospects to find such explanations. There I have to make one clarification, because it isn"t the problem to find some way it could have happened but rather to find a way which is consistent with observation and therefore the god hypothesis is just as bad because we have no evidence for this way to solve the problem either. Let us come to your last point and directly start with the talk concerning free will. I absolutely agree with you that free will isn"t consistent with the either determinism or the quantum indeterminism as both wouldn"t entail free will at all. This though is much more an argument against a theistic god, as this would take the possibility to blame the existence of evil on free will. Now your actual argument refereeing to Newton is, correct me if I am wrong as I don"t really understand the point you are making, that everything is at any time existent and that time is everywhere existent. This is absolutely consistent with the view of B theory of time postulating time as a dimension (but therefore isn"t going well with a cosmological argument). Now I quote you to ask you to specify what you actually mean with "Hence, because nothing can be nowhere and everywhere, he is always and everywhere". If I see it correctly, you say that because it is impossible to be both nowhere and everywhere, this is implies that god is everywhere. If this is what you mean I have to object as there is also the possibility to just be nowhere, which would therefore make god not existent. I agree that he can"t be both, but as I said it isn"t at all implying that him existing is the actual reality. Thanks!