God Exists

1. if a maximally great being (one who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect) possibly exists, then it exists in some possible worldI'd like to point out that the entire argument relies on the assumption that a "maximally great being exists" and there is no reason to believe a "maximally great being" exists. 2. if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists across a series of possible worldsThis does not follow; there is no reason to assume a maximally great being would exist in all worlds if it exists in one. 3. if a maximally great being exists across a series of possible worlds, it exists in the actual world 4. therefore, a maximally great being exists1. everything that beings to exist, has a cause 2. the Universe began to exist 3. therefore, the Universe had a cause of it's existenceThis cause must be outside of space, and therefore time, according to the theory of relativity.There is a way that this argument could be invalid: if time doesn't exist. Surprisingly it turns out that time really might not exist negating the cosmological arguments requirement of God. If time doesn't exist then the cosmological argument falls apart--http://www.newscientist.com...1. there are fine-tuned constants and quantities which exist in the universe 2. this fine-tuning could either be due to natural laws, chance, or else design 3. they are not due to chance or design 4. therefore, they are due to designI'd also like to point out that if there was a God that created the universe for humans, it's very shortsighted for an omniscient being that he'd make: 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998% of the universe uninhabitable. Now the questionable premise is premise 3. But I can't see how anyone could argue chance or design caused the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Natural laws came into existence at the Big Bang, before the Big Bang the Universe was not guided by anything, except a melee of fundamental particles. No laws existed to restrain activity in the Big Bang to produce a Universe which was habitable. What about chance, then? Well, the range the constants had to fall into to make the Universe inhabitale are so infinitesimally tiny that chance could not logically have caused the universe to be finely tuned for intelligent interactive life. Therefore, only design could have caused the fine-tuning of the universe.The underlined statement is false because as pro admitted there is a NON-ZERO chance that the constants just happened to fall into the range for intelligent life. That means it is both logical and possible to assume that it was chance. The only way the teleological argument works is if proposition 3 has no chance of being wrong, and there IS a chance it's wrong.CONCLUSIONFirst I'd like to remind everyone that I don't have to prove God doesn't exist; I simply have to prove that there's a chance God doesn't exist.Pro provided three arguments:1. The modal argument--I showed it doesn't prove God exists because there is no reason to assume that a maximally great being exists.2. The Cosmological Argument--I showed that there is a possibility that time doesn't actually exist(rather it's an illusion) and because of that the cosmological argument doesn't prove God exists.3. The Teleological Argument--I showed that there is a possibility that the physical constants could have fallen into the intelligent life range by chance and that it's unlikely that an omniscient being would fine tune the physical constants yet make most of the universe uninhabitable.I have shown that each of these arguments have a chance of being incorrect. Therefore Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof as there is a possibility for each of the arguments to be incorrect.