The Best Evidence/Argument For God's Existence

I look forward to the discussion! I will focus my first response on premise 4 of your argument, and break it into pieces so I can respond to each claim clearly. Contention #1My first issue is with the first sub-premise in premise 4.1:"P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being or an abstract object. "While you later explain this further, and with fear of sounding like I'm nit-picking, I simply must point out that this premise, as-is, creates a false dichotomy by creating a situation in which you propose that those options are the only two possible options, and that if one is false the other is necessarily true. (1) I acknowledge that it seems you speak to this later in 4.2, but the argument to demonstrate that P4 is true that you presented as a syllogism is unsound because of the fallacy in the first premise. (2)What you could say for the first premise, which doesn't commit the aforementioned fallacy, is say the cause of the universe is either a abstract or non-abstract. It would seem from everything else you stated that you would agree with this, and I don't disagree with your definitions and your subsequent claim:". .. .. .. Therefore, an abstract object cannot cause the universe because they possess no causal properties. "I would say that with my 're-writing' of your first premise, in bold above, coupled with your quote directly above this, we might be in agreement that the "cause of the universe" would need to be something that is "non-abstract". If you would accept this correction/distinction, you then would need to demonstrate that this non-abstract cause must be a conscious being, which I get to in the coming remarks. Contention #2"Some might argue that a non-conscious force caused the universe. This explanation is more implausible than a personal explanation. If a non-conscious force was floating around before the beginning of the universe, then why did the universe come into being? "I don't know if I would quite agree with the grammar of the last sentence of the above quote. My understanding of space-time is that speaking about anything "floating around outside of space" or "before the beginning of time" is nonsensical. When we talk about 'floating around' or 'before' or 'after', we are doing so directly within the context of space and time. All I can say in response to this is that such claims don't seem to make sense, and if you'd like to discuss them further I'd ask that you clarify for me. (I come back to this later)Contention #3"It's not as if the force willed the universe into being, because will requires a conscious mind. Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world? This is completely inexplicable if a non-conscious force caused the universe, but a personal cause has no such issues, because we can say that the personal cause willed the universe into being. "3.1. My first issue with the above is that it is another logical fallacy, namely an argument from ignorance. (3) Just because something is inexplicable doesn't make it untrue. Without the germ theory of disease, and a basic understanding of other biological concepts, diseases were entirely mysterious to our ancestors, and positing supernatural causes provided explanations that seemed to have "no issues" explaining why this happened, but we all know now that this was a fallacy based on our ignorance. Just because we don't have an answer to the question "Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world? ", doesn't mean that your alternative is true.3.2. My second issue with the above is the idea that consciousness or a "conscious mind" existing without a brain. My understanding of consciousness is that it requires a brain. It seems as if this idea is similar to the concepts I discussed, namely that something could happen 'before time' or exist 'outside the universe'. It seems to me to be some form of a category mistake (4), when you talk about these things, but this may be due to differences in definitions. I'd rather not beg the question, so I'd like for you to perhaps expound on this idea that consciousness could exist without a brain/matter, or if I misunderstand help me to better grasp this concept. Contention #4"A personal explanation is therefore the best explanation of the universe, affirming premise four. "I have pointed out that premise 4 of your main argument is based on a number of fallacies, primarily an argument from ignorance, which therefore renders the argument as presented unsound. I look forward to your response. Sources:(1) . http://rationalwiki.org... (2) . http://www.iep.utm.edu... (3) . http://rationalwiki.org... (4) . http://en.wikipedia.org...