On balance of probability, there is a God.

I am sincerily delighted in the ability to debate a formidable partner. Given your previous debates, I look forward to your rebuttals. ==My case==Contention 1: The KCA Whatever begins to exist has a cause The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Premise 1 is metaphysically true--namely, something cannot possibly come from nothing, the denial of which is absurd. If something can come into existence without a cause, then we are begging the question as to why we do not have any examples of this constantly happening. The question: Why doesn't everything and anything pop into existence withotu a cause? The reason is because nothingness is constrained by physical laws, for there is nothing to constrain. To deny premise 1 is to deny causual regularity. Philosopher David Oderberg has argued that the first premise is necessarily true:We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1]Premise 2 is supported by both philisophical and scientific evidence. Scientifically, the beginning of the Universe has overwhelming support in modern cosmologists. The Origin of Life project has a prize for those who come up with the truth of how we got here. "Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age. " [2] Likwise, phenomena such as redshift, cosmic background radiation, the expansion of the universe, and the second law of thermodynamics point towards the idea that the universe did indeed begin to exist. Any universe in a state of cosmic expansion must be finite in past duration. [3] Philisophically, if the universe were to have been eternal, this implies the existence of an actual infinite. However, we know that it is impossible for an actually infinite set of things to exist; hence, the universe must be finite in past duration. From this is follows that the universe has a cause. But why think this cause is God? Contradiction argues: Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists. [4] Second, Matt Slick notes: "A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence; otherwise, we would have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist. " [5] Therefore, it logically follows this cause must be transcedent (i. e. , outside of space and time). Sources 1. David S. Oderberg, "Traversal of the Infinite, the “Big Bang” and the Kalam Cosmological Argument", Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 305-36 quoted from . http://www.debate.org...;2. . http://lifeorigin.org...3. . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;4. . http://www.debate.org... 1 5. . https://school.carm.org...;