It is probable that God exists

Thanks to Con for his acceptence. 1. KCACon accepts premise one. Premise two stands as well. Against it Con argues that the "Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago". First since Con fails to show you any other Universes that exist, you extend the premise because all we have to speculate on is the physical Universe. Secondly Con makes no substantive response to the philosophical argument against an infinite number of past events, any and all Universes are finite. Nonetheless, Con concedes that our Universe *did* have a cause. Con doesnt give any logically coherent explanation for this cause (more on this later). Cons only response to the impossibility of infinity doesnt actually address the issue. He misunderstands the nature of time comparing it to "ticks on a clock"--but this wasnt the argument. Obviously time as humans describe it is merely the interpretation of the proximity of events, and while individual time units are just conceptual non existent entities, events certainly do exist and thus are finite. Moreover the very nature of this argument (Cons citation 3) is nonresponsive--first turn this argument because it describes time as beginning at the start of the Universe ("Counting backwards in time") but moreover, this is misrepresenting the nature of "time" I presented, "time" is not defined just as the number of seconds or years but rather is defined metaphysically as the number of events in the past. Events have to be finite or else everything would have already happened, our Universe would not be expanding and would be in a state of equilibrium.Cons only objection to my infinity argument regarding the dollar bills is that I'm "creating a scenario which cannot exist.", but this was precisely the purpose of the thought experiment, to elaborate on the absurdity that is the infinite. Con makes no attempt to explain how infinity is possible--indeed given that he conceded that our Universe did exist and the fact that the Universe is not in a state of equilibrium (heat death) currently strongly indicates that there is no infinity. Thus the problems posed by infinity stand and essentially destroy any naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the Universe save for something definitionally outside of the constructs of time, like God. If theres another explanation Con must offer it, if not you vote Pro. Con argues that I havent shown what existed before the big bang and cited several scientists who argue against an absolute beginning of the Universe. First, so far as the philosophical proof holds true, the argument still stands. No appeal to authority can disprove a necessary truth (like infinity being impossible), but moreover Cons response that Relativity breaks down when we enter the quauntum world is flawed because it doesnt hold given new breakthroughs in cosmology. Craig writes[1]: "...something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment..." In fact Vilenkin himself is quite blunt about the implications of this: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" My opponent pre-empts this argument by arguing that Vilenkins thesis doesnt refer to nothingness as Craigs does,but the problem with Con here is that I'm not obligated to advocate everything about Vilenkins thesis, but its proof of an absolute beginning is what is relevant. No one, not Con nor Vilenkin nor Hawkins has explained how the quantum world could exist in literal nothing (not quantum nothingness) and thus you prefer the cleanly extended philosophical proof from Craig.Therefore, the Universe both scientifically and philsophically did have an absolute beginning. Hawkins and many of the others my opponents cites are great minds and scientists, but they embarass themselves here. The idea that the Universe could somehow bring itself into existence out of nothing is just absurd--to cause itself to exist, it would've had to previously existed.Con then also argues against the "uncaused cause" by saying it breaks the logic of cause/effect...except it simply does not. All that needs to be understood is that the first cause was definitionally uncaused; and indeed given that the law of cause/effect is valid and Con condeded that the Universe was caused, the cause literally could not be anything except uncaused.Con tries to dispute that since infinity is impossible infinite power is impossible but I have two responses: 1. I'm not advocating a God of infinite power, and 2. Even if I was there's no contradiction because "power" in the sense that describes God cannot be understood or quantified so it's irrelevant.From you can cleanly take from this argument that there is an uncaused cause that is beyond the physical universe. A powerful and intelligent mind explains this reality far better than any solution offered by Con.2. Fine tuning Con drops almost all of the specific values I offered and gives no explanation for life occurring naturally, you can extend these and affirm.He does however offer an interesting thought experiment and one I admit I struggled with for a while, but ultimately I have to agree with Con that my existence can be attributed simply to chance, but this has no relation to the argument because God can explain this abnormality but more importantly it only really to the Universe because, unlike people, the Universe only had one beginning and one chance to be life sustaining. This argument is somewhat nonresponsive because the finetuning argument is not explaining why a particular possible universe out of many trillions won, but rather attempting to explain why a finely tuned universe exists. That is, while its equally improbable that any specific possible Universe (or person to use Cons experiment) will exist, it is incomprehensibly more probable that a Universe that is not finely tuned would come into being than one that is. I'm not trying to say what the odds are that THIS PARTICULAR universe exists, but rather why a life permitting Universe exists. Given the values listed in my previous round, the odds are absurdly small.3. Metaphysics Cons only response to this argument is to say that I contradicted myself, but it's been explained above why the attirbutes contributed to God such as causelessness and power are not contradictory. Take this as an implicit concession, and extend this argument because Con makes no response to the substance. God, the first cause, explains why multiple existents occur. Con gives no secular explanation for this, so you automatically prefer the worldview that explains these things--that is, theism.Thus you affirm.Sources:1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...