It is probable god exists

"Many theologians and theistic scientists claim that evidence has been found for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or, at least, some being with supernatural powers. However, they cannot deny that their evidence is not sufficiently convincing to satisfy the majority of scientists." Stenger 21 Ok, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, he is in for a rough ride though. It should first be noted, that he is presenting the positive claim that God is probable, I am merely responding to said arguments. For I think it is important to note that my opponent has defined god in a deistic form, rather then a Traditional form. The Deistic god I tend to be a weak atheist, so to expect me to present a strong case that this god is improbably may be a straw man of my position, and does not actually grant enough space for me to give his arguments for the positive claim an adequate rebuttal. Onto his first argument the Ontological Argument. The biggest problem with the Ontological argument is that there is no reason to go from possible to necessary. It seems to make a huge jump here. That will not be my main contention with this argument though. My main contention is it may be a rational argument but even Plantiga himself is quoted as saying this: "'a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it'. On the other hand he suggests that this key premiss is rather like Leibniz's Law: if we carefully ponder it, considering objections and its connections with other propositions, 'we are within our rights in accepting it'." Mackie pg 59 The reason for this is we can easily see that this argument can be countered. Plantiga himself helps to do this by defining: No Maximality. As we learn a counter argument can be made that a NO maximality is in every possible world. I'll let J.L. Mackie explain: He defines another term, 'no-maximality'. This is the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Then someone might argue as follows: no-maximality is possibly exemplified; that is, there is a possible world in which no-maximality is exemplified, and therefore in which maximal greatness is not exemplified; but if maximal greatness is not exemplified in every possible world, it is not exemplified in any; therefore there cannot be any possible world in which maximal greatness is exemplified, that is, maximal greatness is not possible. Since we could argue before from the premiss that maximal greatness is exemplified in some possible world to the conclusion that no-maximality is not exemplified in any, we can argue equally validly from the premiss that no-maximality is exemplified in some possible world to the conclusion that maximal greatness is not exemplified in any" Mackie pg 59 Now this brings us to the conclusion that based on both do not create contradictions that it may be a toss up. So how do we decide well we would go about using Occam's Razor. The Maximum being actually requires a lot more where as the rival as Mackie again puts it:" where as the rival premiss that no-maximality is realized in some possible world, still allows maximal excellence to be realized in some possible worlds though not in others. The latter, then, is less restrictive, less extravagant, and so on very general grounds the more acceptable." Mackie pg 61 So therefore based on Occam's razor and the 2 contradictory positions here we are forced to conclude god is still not probable. 2. Kalam's Cosmological Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This argument fails in many ways. Firstly, and most importantly it commits the Fallacy of Composition. It attempts attributes the attribute of all the things that have began to exist, to the entire set( the universe). This is a blatant logical fallacy. Say I only have square legos and I start building with them. What shape would my structure have? Oh that's right you can't attribute an attribute of the pieces of the set to the entire set so we don't know. I will contest as well that we can't accept this argument based on the 2nd premise. "Nevertheless, another nail in the coffin of the kalam argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails. As we saw above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge." Stenger 125 So the 2nd premise has no reason to be taken seriously as current knowledge simply does not know what happened before the big bang. This argument also has another huge mistake to it. It assumes a personal cause. We know from science that not everything has a personal cause. Craig even inadvertently admits as much: "Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused," just caused in a non-predetermined manner"what he calls "probabilistic causality." In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous"something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation." Stenger 124 Extra bonus reading material for people interested in a further critique of this argument, including excerpts from Plantiga, my opponents first source: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com... The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument This argument again commits the fallacy of composition. The fact that every thing in the universe needs a cause says nothing of the universe. As the universe is the set of all known things. We can not say that the universe needs an explanation. The first premise is also unfounded. We do not know if the universe was not a necessary outcome. Who is to say the universe is not the BC or brute fact. In this argument, it basically concludes that at some point there has to be something non-contingent. The argument then defines this thing as god. Well, lets see, again we have not shown that the universe is contingent at all. It could be that brute fact. As Alvin Plantiga even has argued, one fo the problems with the Cosmological argument is it conflates the universe with other things, which the Fallacy of composition. f the universe is contingent, could it be contingent upon another universe, a regress of universes. So, I have given us 4 possibilities. God, this universe is a brute fact, there is another universe that this universe is a contigent on, and finally this universe is contingent on a series of universes. All of these things being equal and thats a stretch, the god hypothesis is at 25%, or below 50% so not probable. It gets worse, the god hypothesis contains the most unnecessary assumptions, we know this universe exists, hence the other 3 options don't really on assuming beings that are not even known to exist, so therefore that lowers the odds even further to a rational person based on Occam's razor. Another refutation of this poor argument is given here for further reading: http://fatfist.hubpages.com... So In conclusion, we have 3 arguments that on there own do not present god as a the best possibility. None of them get past Occam's razor so there is no reason to assume that god is likely or probable, based on the evidence my opponent has presented.