God Exists

Please publish your argument again 

sorry this is my first time using this forum. I though I had previously published my argument, but evidently I didn't. Completely my fault.

Anyways,  I just want to focus on one aspect of your argument, for now. I feel as if your comparison between an "enormously large pink bicycle" and the universe (well technically you are comparing each's origins) is rather odd. 

   The universe, from a purely scientific point of view, is full of complexity. So much so, that scientist often struggle to predict the evolution of even a small sub-system of the universe. Many scientist dedicate their life's work in developing ways to predict outcomes within a simple systems. The universe is a massive system, which has countless interconnected sub-systems that could probably be broken down into smaller sub-systems. From nearly every aspect, and any way you look at it, the universe is super complex. It even contains self reference. It recognizes and adheres to its own rules (e.g. gravity, energy conservation etc.) and it produced us: minds capable of arguing about its very existence. An ""enormously large pink bicycle" seems like an unfair comparison. It is a mechanical tool of transportation. While possessing a degree of complexity, it will never have anywhere near the level of complexity the universe has, simply because the universe is capable in sustaining such a device. Bicycles are also deterministic machines. They are predictable and reliable enough to use daily. Whereas concepts and ideas about our universe are constantly being fleshed out and reviewed. I think even with your scaling of the bicycle, its complexity remains the same. It is made from specific parts to do a specific function. Making it bigger does not inherently give it more functions. It still remains a bicycle that has few specific functions. In fact, by scaling the size of a bicycle, and implying that complexity is proportional to size, we can do the same with our universe. Perhaps an infinitesimally small universe could be compared to just a "pink bicycle"? That's ridiculous! The universe would be reduced to a bunch of atoms with little room to interact and sustain life! No matter what size you scale a bike to, it will never become "more complex", so the "enormously large..." is unnecessary and confusing. Scaling a bicycle does not add new properties opposed to a regular sized one. The universe's complexity and a bicycle's complexities are vastly different.  

It's fine, not a big problem. Let's begin.

Actually, you prove my point.
If the universe is very much more complex than a pink bicycle, then how come the universe just "popped" into existence if it's not possible for a simple bicycle to do so?
And why are there rules?
Why does gravity act the way it acts if the whole universe is random, etc.?
If there was nothing before the universe, then it 100% points to a supernatural creator, which I have previously in Round 1 explained why He must be one singular.
If there was something, like literally anything, which caused the Big Bang, we get to the same question: how did that thing just start existing? The thing cannot be eternal, or else the universe would have been eternal. The universe had a start, and the same for this thing.
In simpler words:The existence of ABC caused the universe.If ABC existed for an infinite amount of time before and will after, that would make the universe eternal, which it isn't. Why? Because once ABC started existing, the universe must also start existing.

Thank you for understanding.

I understand your reasoning and questions behind asking why "If the universe is very much more complex than a pink bicycle, then how come the universe just "popped" into existence if it's not possible for a simple bicycle to do so? And why are there rules? Why does gravity act the way it acts if the whole universe is random, etc.", and it is only a logical thing to say after hearing my argument. However, I think you fall into the logical trap of only providing two possible solutions. Either, we 100% have a creator, or we don't and the universe just "popped into existence". I think you fail to provide a bigger sense of what we are trying to grasp here. 

Firstly I feel as if you present the alternative to the supernatural as ridiculous or silly. This is a false dilemma. You present the supernatural explanation as the only logical reason for the universe's existence, providing much detail and explanation to support it. However, when dealing with the alternative, the only explanation you give for it is "Just popped into existence".

Secondly, there are multiple explanations beyond The Big Bang and "God" that seek to explain our existence. There are multiple models in science that try to explain the same thing the Big Bang attempts to explain. There are theories that propose quantum models, cyclical models, and even black hole models that try to provide an accurate description of the universe's beginning. Even in religion, separate ideologies provide their own theories regarding everything's origins. How do you go about showing me how your religion, specifically, is the right one, the one everyone should believe in. I believe that all religions require faith, including science. Of course we can provide reasonable evidence and support for each faith, any other belief, foreign to our own, is wrong within our own system of beliefs.

I don't think I can iterate this more clearly: The universe is not random. There is a study in math and physics called chaos theory. It states that a system can exhibit extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, that a slight deviation of those conditions can result in vastly different results. This explains its seemingly random behavior. The universe still operates on the laws of physics. Gravity did not arise from randomness. In fact, gravity is an inherent property of the universe.

I would like to clarify one thing. Supernatural does not inherently point to a divine entity. The Miriam Webster definition of supernatural goes as follows:

"Supernatural- of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe". This merely states that something beyond our universe is supernatural. It does not point to divinity or a being. So when you state the supernatural is the causation, I want to clarify that you are merely stating that something beyond our universe was the causation. Even if you prove the supernatural exists and is the sole cause for this universe, you still have yet to prove that it is "your" God. You stated "I am looking for Atheists to debate with on the topic does God exist", but that is a pretty narrow statement. Which god, under which ideology? There are many gods, including several pantheons of gods. How can you rigorously and systematically show me yours is the one.

    To respond to 1,  I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. I was saying that is was wrong for you to only provide two possible explanations for the universes existence. Either God or the universe "just popped into existence". I think that this was a very black and white interpretation of the universes origin. I provided several models beyond the two we were mainly debating to show you that there are many reasons given that all claim to explain the same thing. I know, that if your God exists, then we cannot explain his origins, unless revealed to us. 

    Now for no. 2. I feel as if this is a very one-sided argument right now. You point out the problem of infinite regress, as any reasonable person should. However, I can do the same thing. Where did your God come from. Why does he act the way he does? Of course there is a logical explanation for this. It causes an infinite regress. Since everything is contingent on a creator, there needs to be a non-contingent source of everything. That means a necessary being- God. This is a completely logical deduction. However, I can apply that to the ABC mechanism. Basically God and ABC mechanism have the same function, they can be considered interchangeable for this argument. (Also side note: You said who created ABC. The whole point of my specific argument was trying to show how mechanics can produce the universe without a "who". You completely skipped past my whole point by acting as if your conclusion was already proven. You are assuming your conclusion without even considering mine when the whole point is trying to convince the other of your conclusions, instead of assuming it) So, ABC mechanism still holds. You are applying a logical double standard.  As to why it acts the way it does, I don't think you can explain why your God does the things he does completely. Sure you can provide reasons, but can you , with 100% certainty, systematically show why he does what he does? I know I can't explain why the universe acts like it does. That is an admission every reasonable scientist will make. We don't know why.

    #3. while these verses explain who and what he did, it does not explain the mechanics. Maybe I should have been more specific. What specific physical processes happened that your God used to create the universe? Science provides multiple models that explain just that. However, these verses fail to explain that, ruling out any possibility of verification through testing, leaving it up to a matter of faith. That is where you and I are differing on. 

    #4. "A mindless item doesn't make rules for itself". Notice i said "inherent property", meaning it is a property that naturally arises from something. It in know way implies any sense of "choosing" or "making". Gravity was there when the universe was there. The universe didn't "choose" to make gravity. Gravity is an inherent property of the universe. A property is not a rule. And why? This suggest intent, which suggests a being. Which is what your conclusion is. You are still assuming the validity of your conclusions when trying to prove my conclusions, in opposition to yours, wrong. You are begging the question. 

    #5. I see your point. However, like I said before, you are being very narrow minded. Perhaps I didn't explain it well- and that's my fault. Within the premise of Monotheism (in this case, Islam) your conclusion about "one God" is completely valid. If there is omnipotence but two gods, it creates a logical fallacy. However, notice the premise relies entirely on the idea of omnipotence. Many religions/worldviews believe in polytheism or at the very least, no absolute power. Many forms of Polytheism holds that no god is absolute and omnipotence does not exist. When that is your premise, then the idea of multiple gods is also completely valid. Since your premise relies on the existence of omnipotence (or really any other omni-attribute), the validity of your argument relies on showing the existence of omnipotence. Furthermore, you cannot reproduce (key component in developing scientific theories, tools, results) omnipotence, since it would contradict itself, therefore, you cannot show me if omnipotence exists, except through the source. Which coincidently, the source's existence is what we are debating right now.