God exists

Resolution: God exists.I would like to thank Invisible Deity for the chance to debate him on this subject.I shall be arguing that God exists. For the sake of this debate, God shall be defined as: an immaterial, timeless, powerful mind.The burden of proof shall be upon me to demonstrate the existence of such a being. Without further ado, let's get into my arguments...The Kalam Cosmological argument (KCA)The KCA can be broken into two parts:P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.P2: The universe began to exist.C: .'. The universe has a cause of its existence.P3: EITHER the cause is a mind, OR the cause is an abstract object.P4: The cause is not an abstract object.C: .'., The cause is a mind.The first part is a logically valid BARBARA categorical syllogism. (1)The second part is a logically valid disjunctive syllogism. (2)Thus, in order for the argument to be sound, the premises must be shown to be true. This is where the argument lies. I shall argue for the truth of the premises below.Defense of Premise 1There are multiple reasons to accept P1 as true. I shall list them.1. This premise is a formulation of the most basic principle of metaphysics "ex nihilo nihil fit" meaning, "out of nothing, nothing comes" first formulated by the Ancient Greek Parmenides. (3) Since this is simply just a basic principle of metaphysics, it seems reasonable to accept this premise as true.2. The second reason to accept the first premise is that it just seems intuitively true. If suddenly a rabbit appeared in front of us, for no apparent cause whatsoever, our first reaction would be to ask "What caused this rabbit to appear?" This suffices to show that the premise is just intuitively true. Unless we are given reasons which show otherwise, it is reasonable to follow our intuitions.3. The third and final reason is probably one of the most obvious. Namely, that our experience assures us of the truth of premise 1. I for one, have never seen something come into being without any cause whatsoever. I doubt that anyone has ever experienced such a thing. While this is not necessarily conclusive evidence, it does add towards the favor of P1.The first premise of the argument has been established as true.Defense of Premise 2The second premise is also easily defendable. The Bourde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem tells us that the universe definitely had a beginning. This beginning is also known as the big bang. While one may argue that a multiverse may be the case, and that this multiverse may have an infinite past, the BGV theorem also puts this notion to rest.Listen to what world-renowned physicist Alexander Vilenkin has to say:"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." (4)Thus, modern physics points towards the beginning of the universe.Therefore, the conclusion of the first part of the argument follows necessarily: The universe has a cause of its existence.Now I shall proceed to defend the second half of the KCA.Defense of Premise 3Premise 3 is easily defended as well. At this point, it has logically been established that the universe has a cause of its existence. Clearly, this cause can be nothing physical, since if it were physical, it would be a part of the universe, and nothing can cause itself. It follows that the cause must be immaterial. Furthermore, whatever exists outside of the universe, must also exist outside of time. So the cause of the universe must be immaterial, and timeless.Clearly, there are only two options which fit this description. Either an immaterial, timeless mind, or an immaterial timeless object. Either a personal cause, or a non-personal cause.Defense of Premise 4Finally, our last premise. In order to cause the universe to exist, the cause must have causal ability. This is logically clear. However, abstract objects cannot cause anything. If I find a pot of water boiling on my stove, and I ask "Who started this pot of water boiling?" it would be absurd to answer: "The number 7" or "The laws of logic" or "The objectively moral obligation to not kill."Thus, it is obviously clear that non-personal immaterial and timeless things do not have any causal ability. The only other option is a personal cause, or a mind.ConclusionIn conclusion, all of our premises have been defended as true. The conclusion follows necessarily: The cause of the universe is a mind. We have also rationally shown that the cause of the universe must be timeless, as well as immaterial. Furthermore, if the immaterial, timeless mind, is able to cause the existence of the universe, it must be immensely powerful.Therefore, there exists an immaterial, timeless, immensely powerful mind.The resolution has been affirmed.Over to Con!Sources:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://www.iep.utm.edu...(4) Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176