God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Thank you Con for bringing up some very interesting arguments forward for the existence of God :). His first argument goes as follows (Correct me if i'm wrong) 1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause 2. The Universe began to exist 3. The Universe then must of had a cause. 1. The Argument first of all starts with the assumption that the law of causality applies outside out universe. It might seem logical that in our universe that runs on cause and effect that since our universe began to exist the question is begged to answer as "What caused that" It's a physiological question that comes up into our mind when we think of the beginning of the universe. However as we known physics especially when it comes to quantum physics does not care about our notions of "Cause and effect". The Big Bang has many different hypothesis on how it might of came about but the real answer to how the universe started for right now is "We don't know". However saying "God Did It" could be explained with everything, How did life emerge? God. How Did The weather come about? God. It is a admitted mystery on how the universe began but scientists are everyday trying to figure out the answer to that question and everyday they are getting closer to the answer and i will provide some answers. Before i do however I want to turn a questions around and say, Who Create God? if everything needs to a cause, what caused god? and if god is exempt why cant the begging of the universe be exempt? I would also like to say even if the universe began to exist by some causal agent then why must that causal agent be God? Why not a advanced alien race? Or maybe it was multiple supernatural agents. So even if the universe had a intelligent cause that intelligent cause does not have to be god and even if it was god it does not have to be the God that we know of maybe it could of been a Deist God. There are some leading ideas on how the universe began to exist, First of all the universe did come from "Nothing" but this nothing is not the classical view that we always thought it was. Nothing is a boiling bubbly brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence without cause. A lecture from Lawrence Krauss shows how our universe can begin to exist with no cause Here are some other articles on how the universe could of come from "Nothing" http://www.pbs.org... http://www.livescience.com... https://www.astrosociety.org... Another model is that a universe already existed but when it collapsed right back to itself in a form of a "Big Crunch" which is a model on how the universe might end and then when it reaches a singularity point it expands out again in a form of a "Big Bounce" and that starts the universe, So for all we know there could of been millions or even trillions of universes before our's and that can explain why our universe is here. http://arstechnica.com... http://www.iflscience.com... The last hypothesis i will be presenting which sort of leads us two your second argument is The Multiverse Hypothesis. This Hypothesis states that we are living in just one of many universes and all these universes make up a vast Multiverse. However this could explain how the universe got here and usually it is when two universes clash together and this causes a "Big Bang" the articles below can sum up in a much better way than i can about the Mutiverse Hypothesis. http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://www.space.com... http://news.nationalgeographic.com... So i think i can show that just because our universe had a beginning doesn't mean god needs to be needed to explain that cause (If it was caused by anything) An Overall Video that debunks the argument your brought up can be found here Your Next Argument is the "Fine Tuning Argument" Which states that our Universe if so designed that there must of been a designer to "Create" our universe. 2. I will start from the Multiverse Hypothesis since that is where we ended off in the last argument, The Mutiverse can explain the fine tuning of the universe as it postulates a infinite number of universes each with it's own different laws and different ways of running things and we just so happen to live in a universe that allows our form of life to appear. The Anthropic principle states that the universe looks like it is fine tuned because if it was not the way it is we would not be here and so we wouldn't ask the question on why it looks like it was designed for us. The environment does not shape to fit life, Life shapes to fit its environment. We see this done in biological evolution. Where through a process of Natural selection Life forms that can survive the environment Do survive and those that don't don't survive. So it's no surprise that we can fit the environment we are in. Here's an analogy. I just rolled a die 10 times and got the sequence 3241154645. The odds against that particular sequence coming up are astronomical. Over 60 million to one. Does that mean that this sequence was designed to come up? Or think of it this way. The odds against me, personally being born? They're beyond astronomical. The chances that, of my mom's hundreds of eggs and my dad's hundreds of millions of sperm, this particular sperm and egg happened to combine to make me? Ridiculously unlikely. Especially when you factor in the odds against my parents being born...and against their parents being born...and their parents, and theirs, and so on and so on and so on. The chances against me, personally, having been born are so vast, it's almost unimaginable. But does that mean I was destined to be born? Or does it simply mean that I won the cosmic lottery? Does it simply mean that my existence is one of many wildly improbable outcomes of the universe... and if it hadn't happened, something else would have? Does it simply mean that some other kid would have been born to my parents instead... a kid whose existence would have been every bit as unlikely as mine? http://www.alternet.org...'the_universe_is_perfectly_set_up_for_life'_is_a_terrible_justification_for_god's_existence http://www.pbs.org... I use some argument's and quotes from the article above and here is a link to a summarizing of my argument Now even if we were created by something why does this something have to be god? What if a advanced civilization had a computer that simulated a universe that we can live in? Just because our universe is designed does not mean that our designer is God. Even if God create the universe this would limit the god's power to mere laws. If God is all powerful why would such a god need to have his creative potential restricted to some mere tweaking of some fundamental laws. And even so the best this being can do is create a universe which is almost completely empty with Galaxy's filling up barely 3% of it. In such Galaxy's each have a super massive black hole in the middle with star's and there own planets filling up a lot of the galaxy. "Life" in the grand scheme of things seems to be utterly insignificant, The Idea of a designed universe just for life is absurd and even though we do exist the universe is constantly trying to kill us. I will end with showing of some bad examples of "design" https://en.wikipedia.org... The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking. The human appendix is a vestigial organ with no known purpose. However, appendicitis, an infection of this useless organ, is a certain death without medical intervention. To Name a few fatal flaws in human design. Theirs a lot more in the link i sent. 3. Now the last argument Con brought up is the morality argument. Though believe it or not we already have a natural explanation for how humans got morality in the first place. However to make a better case for how morality came about i recommend to Con and the voters to see this video Morality is a result of evolution and social condition. Good things are things that produce a desired outcome Bad things are things that happen that go against a desired goal That is all what Good and Evil are, So What are the goal's of society? Well, as social animals we want to see what actions lead to a better society. That is why when someone say discovers a cure for some disease that is a "good" thing and someone who murders a lot of people is a "Bad" person. This also answers Con's question on why survival of the fittest does not explain why we act for the betterment of others. We act for the betterment of others because we all rely on eachother for goods and services and by tending to not hurt eachother we increase the likely hood of us surviving and passing our gens to the next generation. Morality originated by evolution as a product of survival and since we evolved as a social species we evolved ways to try to decide what makes a good society and how we can cooperate so we can survive and pass on our genes to the next generation. https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.positiveatheism.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.smithsonianmag.com...