God exists.

VOTERS, BEFORE READING, PLEASE CHECK THE BEGINNING OF PRO'S R1 RESPONSE TO THIS TO SEE IF THIS IS EVEN IMPORTANT. They could be a compatibilist or something, in which case this argument would be entirely useless.

P1. If the probability of an event is 0% or 100%, it is entirely determined to occur or not occur.

P2. If the probability of an event is between 0% and 100%, we can break the probability down into a deterministic part and a random part. (By saying that it's entirely determined to have the particular probability that it does, and that it's entirely random what the actual outcome will be within that probability.)

P3. Given premises 1 and 2, every event must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic part(s).

P4. No one can have control over anything without in some way having some causal influence over it.

P5. It is impossible to have causal influence over anything entirely random. (If you have causal influence over it, it must be partially determined by you. Something partially determined cannot be entirely random.)

P6. Given premises 4 and 5, for any given event's random part(s) (if it has any), we cannot have control over them.

P7. For anything that can fairly be called a human choice, the human must consciously decide it.

P8. All human conscious decisions are largely caused by underlying mental processes.

P9. Given premise 3, All events in human mental processes must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic components.

P10. Given premise 6, humans cannot have control over the random components of the events in their mental processes.

P11. Given premises 7-10, whatever ultimate control a human has over a choice must be from their control over the deterministic components of the events in their mental processes that contributed to that choice.

P12. Given premises 7 and 8, more than a small group of irreducible mental processes would have to be used for a human to control what the deterministic components of a small group of irreducible mental processes would do. (So multiple choices would have to be used to control a portion of what contributed to a given choice, requiring an infinite regress.)

P13. It is very unlikely that we have an infinite past of somehow controlling infinite choices. (Because it is such a specific and unsupported hypothesis, and Occam's Razor.)

Conclusion. Given premises 11-13, it is very likely that every human's choices are all entirely caused by things ultimately outside of their control.

Alright! I made it in time! Yay! I am sorry for getting this out late (but I did it at least!), let us have a great conversation!

 To start of, as far as I am concerned, I must prove at least one variation of god to be true for my arguments to stand. I will stand by the Islam god "Allah" to keep things in one angle (there's like 4000 variation...Maybe more). I will respond to your points first, let's get into it!

  for  Prior probability:

As far as I understand your point, god as a notion doesn't have a high probability to exist since he is a complex notion? Alright, lot to unpack here:

  1- following this principle, I believe I should state something now rather than later. The point I want to base this statement on is that as far as the important aspects of a notion simple, the complexity of the details is irrelevant. To not confuse things, let us get an example. I have a sewer problem, two people come to me, both have equally efficient solutions. The first however, has a complex solution, he can't even explain the solution itself to me, the other, has a simple solution, and an easy way to explain how it functions. Even if his solution has too many mechanics, or has some secondary aspects that are beyond my understanding, I think we both know who will I choose. I know I am bad at examples, I hope you understood my point. What I'm trying to get at is, as far as the basics are simple, there is no need to judge the complexities of the notion. since this is established now, allow me to explain Islam's perspective. Allah is uncreated because he is the one who made the "creation" as a notion, thus won't be subject to it. He made everything, he is the most mighty, and nothing is like him. Why are we here? Well, your second point is set to disprove this, but I'll go into it later. As an answer, Allah gave humans free will, and put them into a test that is this life, you do good, you go to heaven, you do bad, you go to hell. Sound straightforward to me,  answers most basic questions, and is simple enough to be understood by all ages. I'm going to leave it here, since you didn't give a possible hypostasis that doesn't take god in it's reality equation

 2-this is more a problem I noticed while writing the first point, but,  the notions of simplicity and complexity are....Subjective. I may find a question to be simple, while you find it complex. We truly don't have a standard to what something should be to be called "simple". Is it less rules? less interconnection? less redability? it's up to the person. And with a lack of an objective perspective. I now find this point of yours to be weak since it is more based on an understanding and interpretation of yours rather than a real world aspect we could use (or I totally misunderstood your entire argument, you tell me, I am sorry if this is the case). For all that matters, Occam's razor isn't a good argument since it should be based on collective agreement rather than individual. At least to the best of my understanding.

 for Argument against libertarian free will:

for this point, I should perhaps make my position clear. I did state before I'm a Muslim. Thus, I will argue this point from the Muslim perspective. I'm firstly obliged to...Well...Explain it. Islam is, as far is my research on both compatibilism and libertarianism, kind of a mix of the two. You see, in Islam, nothing is random. Any circumstances you find yourself in are pre-determined. Allah made a test for every human that made it to the age to be judged (a rich man 's test for example is whether he will to Allah's orders and be generous or fall to greed). Every situation a human finds themself in, every catastrophe, every problem...These are all decided already by Allah, nothing is up to chance. In  Islam, we have something called "the Tablet of Decress (Luahu ‘l-Mahfuz)", this is basically where everything is stored, everything that happened, is happening, and will happen. So, Allah knows and directs for every aspect of the world we inhabit, nothing is random then. The other side of the coin is, humans do have free will. This is why I said it's a mix. You see, Allah knows everything about you, your thoughts, your actions, you simply can't surprise him. He already knows everything from your first to last breath. The only difference between you and other aspects of the world is that Allah didn't decide your actions for you, he just knows you'll do them. So, to make it simple, in Islam, your circumstances are already decided for you, the way you react to them is what's yours to decide. the event where you get kicked out of your job is something Allah decided for you, it's pre-determined, what you'll do after that is totally your choice, Allah knows what'll happen, but he don't decide it for you. So, you get judged only in what you did, because Allah don't interfere in that. I believe right here, I should call the distinction. Your brain in Islam had the same status as your hand or tongue, it's an organ, it doesn't decide for you. In Islam, we have something called soul and something called self. They aren't the same thing, but are usually used together, so I'll stick to self since it is the most accurate (if you'd like, I can discuss this in more details later on). Your body, alongside your brain, are all just instruments for your self. Your self is what will be judged, thus, attributing choices to the brain is not true in Islam, your brain is simply something your self use, it won't be judged. I'll also argue against relying on the brain as an answer to the question of who choose, since we don't understand the brain functions fully to assume how they're made and how they differ. there are many ambiguous aspects of the brain, you and your brother came from the same womb, have the same brain composition the same organ, yet will both exhibit different actions, you won't be the same despite technically having the same brain (I hope you got my point, I can explain it further if you'd like). That was a lot of explaining, let me take a look at your points:

A prior probability is a probability attributed to a hypothesis before some evidence is taken into account. In this case I intended for the evidence in question to be arguments in favor and against God's existence that don't involve complexity. In other words, my claim is equivalent to saying that: before we account for other arguments, based solely on the complexity of the hypothesis, we should initially place the probability that God exists somewhere below 50%. Maybe not very far below, but just enough that in the absence of any substantial evidence for His existence, we should believe that He does not exist.

I should have clarified that (as far as I'm aware) in the context of Occam's Razor, "complexity" and "simplicity" refer to the number of irreducible elements, not anything subjective. "Elements" is a pretty vague term and I'm not sure exactly how to define it, but I think the above sections explain the general reasoning I'm getting at regardless.

This demonstrates either a lapse in reasoning on this matter or severe ignorance on how neural networks function, in fact how systems in general (biological or otherwise) function. Sharing the same fundamental composition (in any sense relevant to the point you made) does not at all determine something to function the same way or exhibit very similar or exact behaviors. Think of all the many different functionalities that have been achieved via engines and gears, we would never assume that such machines would all serve the same purpose or behave in the same way based only on the facts that they are made up of the same components and come from the same place. And in fact we understand a good bit about how neural networks work and it's quite obvious that all human brains are massive neural networks. Despite being made up of the same fundamental components, emergent complexity and the analog logic gates that neurons essentially act as allow for very dynamic possibilities with minor differences, as AI has been proving more and more in recent years. And human brains tend to have much more than merely minor differences in structures in their neural networks. No human has exactly the same brain as any other in any sense relevant to the kind of behaviors we could expect the brain to produce, that is statistically impossible given all the very-difficult-to-control ways that different neural structures can form in the brain.