There is no reason to believe in god(s)

I would like to apologize in advance for the format. I'm using an iPod and haven't gotten used to it yet. So without further ado: Kalam Cosmological Argument P1) Everything that Begins to exist has a cause. P2) The Universe began to exist. C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause. P1 is rooted in the law of Cause and Effect. For every effect, there must be a cause. This is relatively uncontroversial. P2 is proven by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, which states that any universe which has been, on average, expanding throughout its history must have a beginning [1]. The universe is expanding [2]. Thus it began to exist. Thus there is a cause of the universe. It must be timeless and immaterial since both time and material arose with the universe [3]. It must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent, since it caused a universe with no preexisting material. It must be intelligent since it caused such an ordered universe. It must be a free agent since there were no preexisting conditions to determine how it acted. Since it is free, it must have the capacity to be personal. A timeless, immaterial, extremely powerful (if not omnipotent), intelligent, personal, free agent that caused the universe to exist is the very definition of God. Intelligent Design. The universe is governed by constants such as the Gravitational Constant and many like it. The interesting thing is that if any of them varied slightly the universe would not be life-permitting. Here is the amazing part: because of the probability of these constants being different, the chance of the universe being life permitting is less than 1 in 10^10^123 [4]. To say that this due to chance is simply unreasonable. To say that this is due to necessity would mean that the universe has to be this way. The Scientific Community would disagree with this, "the universe does not have to be as it is: it could have been otherwise"[5]. The most probable explanation for the way that the universe is would be because of a Designer. The Pool Table Argument Crafted by Salam Morcos (his website is source 6), establishes that there is at least 1 uncaused cause. P1) Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis) P2) There is a finite number of past causes. 3) Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 ... cn 4). Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C. Using Recursive process: 5) Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it? 6) If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof 7) If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it 8) Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx 9) Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1. 10) Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10.The recursive process will loop until either: a) An uncaused cause is found in step 5, or b) After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof. Conclusion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. There's no escape. Moral Argument P1) Objective morality cannot exist unless God exists. P2) Objective morality exists. C1) Therefore, God exists. Most atheists accept P1, including Richard Dawkins who concedes, "It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones" [7]. So I will not defend this premise unless Con has objections to it. P2 is the more controversial premise. To argue that there is no such thing as objective morality is quite contradictory. This is so because moral relativists cling to the position that (1) There is no such thing as objective morality and (2) that we ought to believe that. If, though, there is no objective morality, then we have no obligation to believe that it is true. Furthermore, let"s look at the definition of moral relativism: "position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual." But if truth is relative, then the claim "truth is relative," which all relativists hold as true, would be relative. Thus, P2 stands. Since both premises stand, so too does my contention. Irreducible Complexity Irreducible Complexity will be defined as that which "cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional [10]." My argument is as follows: P1) If irreducibly complex biological structures exist, then Creationism is True. P2) Irreducibly complex biological structures exist. C1) Therefore, Creationism is True. P1 is true by definition. For support of P2, I shall use the bacterial flagellum motor. It has been described as: "so breathtakingly elegant and mesmerizing that the sheer engineering brilliance of the flagella motor and, indeed, the magnitude of the challenge it brings to evolution cannot be properly appreciated" [11]. Why does it pose a problem to evolution? It has been suggested that flagellum evolved from the T3SS, but this could not be the case. The T3SS only makes up of about 25% of the flagellum and fails to account for how the main function of the flagellum, the propulsion system, evolved [12]. The last example of irreducible complexity that I will provide will be the eye. The National Center for Biotechnology Information explains the process that allows us to see, "Upon photon capture, the chromophore isomerizes to all-trans retinal, causing a conformational change in rhodopsin and activation to meta-rhodopsin II. This initiates the process of phototransduction, a cascade of biochemical events that culminate in closure of ionic channels in the cell membrane, hyperpolarization of the photoreceptor and transmission of the signal(s) to second-order neurons in the inner retina via modulation of neurotransmitter release at the synaptic terminals. All-trans retinal is then transported to the RPE for recycling and is returned to the photoreceptor in cis form, to allow production of new chromophore molecules[13]. If any of the eye"s parts were absent, this process would not be possible, rendering us blind. So it is thusly mistaken to think that they eye slowly evolved, because it would have been absolutely useless until it was complete. Again, the only plausible explanation for this is instantaneous and simultaneous creation of the eye and its parts. Sources [1] http://arxiv.org... [2]http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... [3] http://www.hawking.org.uk... [4] http://www.discovery.org... [5] http://cosmos.asu.edu... [6] http://ihavetoargue.blogspot.com... [7] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006), p.232. [8] http://www.discovery.org... [9]http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com... [10] http://www.evolutionnews.org... [11] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...