God is the Best Explanation of the Existence of the Universe

Thanks, Pro for starting this debate. I accept Pro's terms. (Keep in mind I will sometimes post my argument from my phone so I apologize for any spelling errors.) I will be arguing that God is not an acceptable explanation for the creation of the universe. Since the first round is not acceptance I guess I'll go ahead and begin. I will go ahead and start with the argument that I assume Pro is going to use in the near future, the Fine Tuning Argument. This argument can actually be used against Pro and I was actually going to use it anyway. The Fine Tuning Argument Used Against God The Fine Tuning Argument states that the universe is made up of just the right amounts of matter to support life and if these quantities were to be changed by even the smallest integer, life would have never existed. Now this can actually be used against the existence of God. The best way I've heard it explained is by Richard Carrier. "Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us. Likewise, a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size and enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. And that’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size and age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one." " Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that."[5] My opponent insinuates that because the universe has a beginning this beginning must be God, or that the first cause for the universe must be God. This is an assumption with literally no evidence to support the claim. Why does this first cause or beginning have to be God? And which God is it? From Nothing At the subatomic level we find that matter can come into existence uncaused. Mass can come from energy. (e=mc2) But, then, where does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.However, neither observations nor theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.[3]- Victor Stenger[4] Now I will go into some of my better arguments. The term "God" is meaningless God is given the various characteristics such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, yet we have no clue what "God" even is. Take a look at it this way. The chair is brown. This statement makes perfect sense- chairs are usually brownish because most chairs are made of wood. The sound is brown. Now we see that this can't possibly be true, as sound can find no medium which allows it to be seen and change color. We find that objects have secondary properties based on their primary properties. The soul is brown, or even God is brown. This statement is literally meaningless because we have no clue what primary properties God or the soul possess. You could say that God or the soul is "immaterial" or "unidentified" but one cannot describe secondary properties of objects with an unidentified primary property. The Null Hypothesis The Null Hypothesis is a simple concept. Its used in many different subjects for determining something's "default" position. The hypothesis states that all humans are born atheists and that atheism is a person's default position. Until a baby is taught or indoctrinated, the baby will not believe in a higher being and definitely not God. In order for a claim to be accepted, there must be enough reasoning for acceptance. This reasoning is usually evidence. We know that a physical brain is required for intelligence and a mind. It is illogical to think that a non-physical brain can contain all the information of the universe and goes against everything we know through evidence. Sources: http://wiki.ironchariots.org... http://godisimaginary.com... http://www.strongatheism.net...