God exists

This time, Con seems a little bit more comptent than the other opponents I have had so I will try a little harder.Argument from Fine Tuning:P1) There is incomprehensibly improbably fine tuning of the universe for life (sometimes, even for the universe to exist)P2) The only logical explanations are chance, necessity or designP3) It is not due to necessity or chanceConclusion : The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.P1) One example is If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 10^10^123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. This is only one constant. Most of the fine tuning are situations like the probability that the initial universe had low entropy. This infinitesmall probability is 1 in 10^10^123. [0] To put that in context, it is like blindfolding a man then puttin him in a room with a trillion trillion trillion ... (132 trillions) but painting one coin red beforehand. The likelihood of the man picking this one coin among the exponential trillions is the same as the universe having intial low entropy. This is ONE example. Multiply that by the plethora of other (even more unlikely) situations or events multiplied by the unlikely constants and you will realize the glory of the fine tuning of this universe.Most of the sources and the examples of fine tuning can be found here [1].P2) True unless my opponent wants to provide any other explanation.P3) Necessity : Some constants do not even have to exist and you would still have a universe (hostile to any form of life, however) [2] therefore they are not necessary constantsChance : The possibility that the universe would have had this perfect match of constants has been estimated by two of the best mathematicians of our time (Penrose and Lennox) to be 1 in 1^10^123 based on only one constant [3] [4] [5] . according to mathematicians, anything with the possibility of 1 in 10^50 is basically impossible [6] [7]It takes less faith for design."This is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies"THE REMARKABLE FACT IS THAT THE VALUES OF THESE NUMBERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN VERY FINELY ADJUSTED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE." - Stephen Hawking"IF ANYONE CLAIMS NOT TO BE SURPRISED BY THE SPECIAL FEATURES THE UNIVERSE HAS, HE IS HIDING HIS HEAD IN THE SAND. THESE SPECIAL FEATURES ARE SURPRISING AND UNLIKELY." - David DeutschImplications : The deliberate designer would have to exist before the universe existed (to design some of the constants required for the universe to even exist) and is therefore independent of nature (supernatural), universe and its dimensions (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc.). The traits of this supernatural designer proves it is most likely God.This next argument will blow your mind away if understood correctly, however, it has some advanced content.The Introspective ArgumentP1) The mind existsP2) Mind is not reducible to matterP3) Substance dualism is falseC1) All is mindP4) Solipsism is false and only theism is left to account for thisC2) Only theism can account for this C3) Since Theism is true, God existsPremise 1)Theist or atheist, your mind and conciousness is the only thing you can be certain exists and is not an illusion. Whoever wants to deny that his conciousness exists or that there is no such thing as mental experience. Your conciousness and your mind is the only thing you can be sure that is not an illusion. The fact that there is something going on around you and that you are experienceing something is undeniable. Even closing your eyes or isolating yourself as much as possible from your surroundings and the closing your eyes, the only thing you will notice is your mind, conciousness and mental experience. This is proven by Rene Descrates' "I think Therefore I am". Sam Harris further corroborates my point. [8]P2)This is self-evident as can be illustrated through the distinction between the properties of the mind and the properties of the matter. For example, sugar as matter does not carry with it the "taste" of sugar. The substance would be sugar and the mental property would be the taste of sugar or Qualia which is obviously distinct from sugar itself since taste is all a mental experience and property. When you die, even if you have sugar in your mouth (matter), you will not have ualia to experience the taste. This is also evident with feeling pain (mental) and electrical signal (physical/matter) to the brain. The whole point of this passage is that our mental experience is fundementally different from matter. Sam Harris agrees with so that no amount of introspection of the mental experience can reduce to the matter. [9] Further corroboration and confirmation can be found in the Levine's explanatory gap and in the argument from modal idealism. Moreover even further confirmation can be found in the case of Mary, the color scientist. ()P3) Though it appears obvious that the mind is immaterial, there is a problem. We often think of the world as divided between immaterial mind and material matter, the ghost and the machine. But there is a problem with this view often referred to as the interaction problem.My immaterial mind can move my material body, but my material body moves via a material force. Thus if my mind can interact with my body, it must produce material forces. However if it produces material forces, it can not really be immaterial at all.Thus substance dualism is found to be self-contradictory at close inspection and must be rejected. But if immaterial mind already exists, then no other substance can. Thus matter can not exist, and idealism is true necessarily. atheist youtuber Gary Edwards illustrates this wonderfully here : - The interaction problem for substance dualism Conclusion 1 predicts the philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics of the universe being a mental construct and that there is no objective reality and rather all of reality is subjective mental construct and that WE create objective reality. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] P4) "..... a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism" - Richard Conn Henry and Stephen R. PalmquistHowever, solipsism can be debunked or rather prove God with a simple reductio ad absurdum argumentP1) If solipisism is conceivable, then a possible world exists with only mind (Per definition)P2) Solipsism is conceivable P3) Possible worlds can not be composed of only processes and properties, but must include entitiesP4) There is no difference between the mind existing in a solipsist world and the actual world (Leibiniz's Law of indescernability of Identicals)C1) Thus, the mind can not be a property but must be an entityC2) Solipsism entails an eternal mind in the actual world which is the theistic view of God C3) Solipsism, even if true, proves God.Implications : If all is mind, then reality is dependent on a much larger eternal concious mind ... God and can not be entirely dependent on our mental construct (solispsism disproven)"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force .. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" - Max PlanckSome find this argument irrational but ..." .. most of the scientific community will reject these ideas .. their reasons are based on prejudice rather than sound argument" - Euan Squires.Modal Ontological Argument:P1) It is possible that a Maximally Great being (MGB) existsP2) If MGB is possible, he exists in some possible worldP3) If MGB exists in some possible world, he exists in all possible worldsP4) If MGB exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual worldConclusion : MGB or God existsPremise one) It is definitely possible for God or a MGB to exist in some possible world since it is not a logical contradiction.Premise 2) If MGB is possible to exist, it logically follows that he exists in some possible world since existing in some possible world would lend truth to the possibility of his existence.Premise 3) a maximally great being is by definition, one which has all the properties favorable to have than not. His existence would necessitate having all the great properties to the fullest extent. One great property that he would have to the fullest extent would be the property of necessity. a MGB would be categorized as a necessary being rather than a contingent being for it is greater and to a fuller extent to exist in all possible worlds (necessary) rather than to exist in some possible world (contingent). Therefore, a MGB would have to be a necessary entity. a necessary entity by definition is one that exists in all possible worlds including the world that we currently live in i.e. the actual world.Premise 4) If God exists in the set of all possible worlds, it logically entails that he exists in this actual world since this world is possible to exist and does exist. Some might claim that reality and the actual world is an illusion or some computer stimulation, however, this has been disproven by Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am".Conclusion : If God exists in this world, then God exists in the actual world.Question begging?Some critics and skeptics might say that the argument uses God's definition to prove the existence of God. However. This is maliciously false since the argument uses the philosophy of ontology. [16] Moreover, the skeptics of such argument fail to recognize the difference between "de dre" and "de dicto". [17]Unicorns?Some claim that the argument could be used to argue for the existence of a single horned horse or the unicorn. However, proponents of this objection fail to realize the distinction that unicorns are contingent entities while a MGB entails necessity of his existence.