It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

So time for round four. On aliens. the Supernaturalistic properties of the alien would rely on whether the alien transcends the Universe, and is immaterial, timeless, spaceless etc as presented in the Kalam Cosmological argument which I have defended. Naturalistic Aliens could end the debate on the teleological and design arguments for us but you still wouldn't have dealt with where those aliens came from themselves. The aliens would disprove the moral argument or any of the arguments for the first cause, in fact, none of the none teleological and design arguments for God would be debunked and still would leave open the possibility for a universal and deistic and monotheistic God which is the motion we are discussing. For something to be supernatural it must transcend nature. You have not disproven my arguments for the existence of such a being. Okay, so it is time to refute the infinite regressions arguments. Whether then narrator is derogatory is up to you to decide that is not the point of this video. The point is to show why the who created God argument is seriously flawed. My guess is that a professional philosopher is someone who is a Professor or lecturer of Philosophy or someone who authors philosophical books and get money from them, people like Dr. William Lane Craig. So after reading your statement and reading the article, I am going to defend IP and the necessity of God by using Leniz Cosmological or Contingency argument as well as the Digital physics argument. Keep in mind these are philosophical arguments, not theological ones. I will also touch on what can't be explained by Science. I will attempt to show that the being that we call God is a necessary being and is thus worthy of being called God. The Leibniz Cosmological/Contingency argument: P1. Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation. P2. The universe has an explanation for its existence which is grounded in a necessary being P4. The universe exists P4. Therefore, the existence of the Universe has an explanation (refer to P1, 3) P5. Therefore, the explanation for the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (refer to P2, 4) C. Therefore a necessary being exists and that being is what we call God. Now to show the soundness of this argument. All I need to do is successfully defend P1,2 and 3. P1 is confirmed by the Principle of sufficient reason which states that everything must have a reason and a cause. An example of this is every Scientific Fact. P2. Is confirmed by Modern Big Bang Cosmology which I address in my introduction concerning the Kalam Cosmological argument. Refer to round one of this discussion. Also, check out the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Also, check Kochen-Specker Theorem. A Necessary being in this context must be A non-physical and intelligent mind with the ability to create. This being if it exists is free from infinite regressions. Basically, the being we call God is immaterial, conscious and who is omnipotent, omniscient and necessary. So you might argue why can't the universe come from nothing like subatomic particles. This is because subatomic particles come from a fluctuation of energy contained in a vacuum state. This objection is simply a based on a misunderstanding of physics. Subatomic particles come from energy. This objection would be an example of an infinite regression. This confirms P3,4,5 and by logical deduction the Conclusion. If you would like I can further back this up by defending the Digital physics argument for the existence of God. If you would like further elaboration. Talk to me in the comments. Okay so on to Mutually incompatible. So I need to define Divine Omnipotence. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible for a being to do in that situation. God at least the one I believe in, as well as the one I have argued for, has no reason to lie or sin. I believe that this question would be better answered if we discussed whether God=Good. the limits are not suggesting that God doesn't have the power because he is not omnipotent but that his nature and status makes the notion of sinning ad lying absurd for him to engage. Asking God to sin is like asking God to create a square circle or a married bachelor. The Laws of Logic make it absurd and so God won't do it. God sinning and his morally perfect being (refer to the ontological argument) would break the Law of non-contradiction. So it wouldn't and couldn't happen. If you would like we can also discuss the laws of logic. I never said you claimed that evolution disproved God. I was using evolution to show that it does not debunk the Moral Argument. I would say the evolution is a form of creationism. My conclusion is simple. supernatural aliens depend on what you mean by alien and what you mean by supernatural. God as a necessary being does not cause infinite regressions. God is omnipotent and logical. Evolution does not debunk the Moral argument and is a form of creationism.