God Exists

Thanks to Con for challenging me to this debate. Good luck! To begin, there's a bit of tension between Con's title prompt and what they label the "Full Resolution." "God Exists" and "It's more reasonable to believe in God" are different ideas, and since no one can prove the former either way, I intend to respond to the latter. I will be affirming that belief in God is more reasonable than non-belief. As such, we should define "reasonable." There is no direct definition of "reasonable" in the SEP or IEP, so I hope Con will accept me turning to the dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines "reason" (root of reason-able) as "a statement offered in explanation or justification." So, I will be arguing that belief in God offers better explanations for the observed world than non-belief. I hope my opponent finds this agreeable. -- Arguments -- 1. Origin: Before starting this argument, we must establish that the universe had a finite beginning. Both logic and scientific evidence show that the past cannot be infinite. Logically, if an infinite sequence of past events must occur before reaching this present moment, then we could never actually reach this present moment because it's impossible to complete an infinite sequence of events. Scientifically, the theorem developed by cosmologist and professor of evolutionary science Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proves that the universe "cannot have an eternal past" and therefore must have had a finite beginning [1]. Given that the universe had a beginning, there are only 3 possible explanations for the origins of the universe as we observe it: physical necessity, chance, or design (If Con can think of a 4th, they are welcome to include it). Physical necessity - There is no logical or empirical evidence to suggest the universe exists out of necessity. I realize that a simple lack of evidence is not a good reason to totally reject a proposal (Argument from Ignorance), but we are looking for the most reasonable explanation here, and I submit that an explanation for which there is no evidence is not the most reasonable. Chance - This is a viable option, but it's so astoundingly improbable that it cannot offer the best explanation. Roger Penrose of Oxford University calculated that the probability of the universe's low entropy condition developing by chance alone is 1:10^10(123). [2] That is a 1 followed by more zeros than there are atoms in the universe! It is a probability so small that it certainly flirts with the definition of impossible. I look forward to Con explaining why we should accept such improbability as more reasonable than the alternative. Design - Flipping Penrose's ratio around, there is therefore a 10^10(123) to 1 probability that the universe did NOT arise by chance, i.e., design is vastly more probable. But beyond probability, there are logical reasons to accept design as the best explanation for life: First, something cannot come from nothing, and nothing cannot cause something. Since we have already established that the universe (i.e., everything that exists) had a finite beginning, it means by definition that nothing must have existed before the universe. Therefore, if we accept the chance explanation, we must accept that nothing somehow caused everything by chance. However, since nothing cannot cause something, the most logical explanation is there must have been an intelligent cause. Next, all the scientific evidence we have available today indicates that life cannot come from non-life (abiogenesis). Many experiments have attempted to do it, and some have succeeded in forming basic proteins, but none have produced life. We do, however, know for a fact that life can produce other life, and that conscious beings can produce other conscious beings. As such, I submit that design is the better explanation for life's origins.2. Meaning, purpose, and morality: A purely natural process cannot produce intangible, unnatural concepts. Therefore, without God there is no true meaning, purpose, or morality in the universe. If my opponent believes this to be true then they have embraced Nihilism, and we will discuss that in the next round. I believe it is not true, and I submit that humanity's universal sense of meaning, purpose, and morale value judgments should be interpreted as empirical evidence that these concepts are real. This demands there must be a "God" in the sense that Con has defined it. [1] http://arxiv.org... [2] http://www.evolutionnews.org...