Oh, so I guess 2+2 didn't = 4 prior to the times of Archimedes, Pythagoras, Euler, and Newton.
I don't know about that, but Archimedes and Newton get a lot of credit for the development of calculus. They didn't find calculus growing on a tree.
And as far as "2 + 2 = 4" is concerned, we have symbols created by people (Arabs): namely; 2, +, =, and 4. We have a sentence here in the human language known as "mathematics." Translated into the human language we call "English," the sentence is written: "Two plus two equals four." These symbols are being manipulated according to a rule invented by people known as "addition." The rule of addition is every bit as much a human contrivance as the "check-mate" rule in chess.
So there was no "2 + 2 = 4" before human beings made up the symbols and the rule. To say that rules like these are evidence for a mathematician in the sky is simply wrong.
"Nature events can and do result from physical necessity" <-- #1 has already taken care of this one.
Uh, no. Your "game" 1 states: "Nature created the event by random chance." Physical necessity is the opposite of chance. So you are failing to consider the possibility that nature operates according to laws that are not random.
...once you've admitted the possibility of God (a necessary being) existing, then you are simultaneously concluding that God actually exists (see Modal Ontological Argument).
I'm not sure how you are reaching this conclusion. How must the Bible god exist if its existence is possible? Why do you insist he's necessary?
...what is the probability of a god creating the universe?
We don't need to know the probability of something that has actually occurred.
In that case you are assuming what you're trying to prove.
Well, the fact that the universe exists would mean that the probability of God creating the universe is high.
I'd say that the probability of any god creating the universe is zero. Gods cannot create anything because they are fictional characters created by people.
And since the physical world cannot be past-eternal, that would make the probability of the universe existing without God impossible.
I think that some day scientists will fully explain the existence of the cosmos without recourse to belief in any gods.
The point is; the more parameters you add to the mix, the more improbable the task will become...
My point is that you're getting your math wrong. If you want to argue probabilities in your apologetics, then make sure you know what you're talking about.
...and that is a parallel to the physical constants which govern our universe, with each constant being so mathematically precise that if the value of each one was either decreased or increased, life would have never have began to exist.
Many scientists don't buy this argument. Laurence Krauss, for example, points out that at least one of these constants would make life much more probable if that constant's value was different. Besides, the vast majority of the cosmos is deadly. If Jesus fine-tuned the universe, then he did a sloppy job of it.
And why would an all-mighty god need to fine-tune the cosmos?
Do you see that? The probability is 1/10^10^123. Do the math on that one.
Assuming Penrose is right that the chance of fine-tuning equaling that number, we still need to compare it to the probability of Jesus fine-tuning the universe to see which possibility is more probable. You have failed to post that probability, and until you do, you have not made your case.
...we are talking about the probability of life occurring in the first place with no intelligence at all.
Does science help us here? No.
Actually, science is making progress in explaining the origin of life. Apologists need to get ready to come up with arguments to deny that evidence.
That is the point; it is all conceptual...but when you apply the "concept" to reality, you wind up with absurdities...which is precisely why, in the real world, you can't count "down" from infinity to zero.
And if you can't count down from infinity to zero, then how can you traverse an infinite number of past days to arrive at today? You can't do it.
You're getting your math wrong again. I'm not saying we need to "count down from infinity to zero." It's obviously impossible to do that. Again, you just start at zero, and then go back as far as you like into the negative integers. Just place the present at zero and all past times at some negative integer. Since there are an infinite number of negative integers, there is potentially an infinite number of past times.
Easy. Simple. Assuming you are willing to give up your religious predispositions.
So why can't you get to the number zero by counting (one by one) all of the negative numbers down to zero?
Just start at zero, and go back as far as you like!
Oh, so yesterday wasn't traversed to arrive at today?
LOL--of course it was, but you don't need to traverse the infinite past to get to zero. You're already at zero.
If the past cannot be infinite, then of course there is a limit to how far back we can go. What is that limit? Why is it a limit? Apologists neglect to tell us what this limit is.
Well, I am an apologist, and I will tell you what the limit is...the limit is; the beginning of time.
The beginning of time is the furthest you can go back in time.
You're again assuming what you're trying to prove. I'm asking you to demonstrate
that there must be a beginning of time not to just assert it.
Let's assume that X is the number of years it is possible to go back into time. What makes X + 1 years into the past logically impossible?