God exists

Many thanks for your response. Very common argument. So fortunate am I that it was proposed, and then instantly rebutted, by the same person: Thomas Aquinas. It is a classic case of "can an unstoppable force move an immovable object?". The problem with this question is that it instantly contradicts itself- it does not make sense. You cannot say "unstoppable force" and "immovable object" as two adjacent propositions : since you first established that "there is an unstoppable force" it is completely illogical to then say "immovable object"; the foundation is that there is an unstoppable force, nothing can stop it; ergo there cannot suddenly appear an immovable object- you just said that there is a force that cannot be stopped, then how come this object cannot be moved by this force? Because you contradict yourself and make illogical premises, so your conclusions will be completely invalid! So how does my breakdown of the argument above relate to God? It has an identical concept: once again, you first state with the premise and assumption, "can God"- God being omnipotent- he can do everything; and then make the proposition "can't lift": this, like above, is a contradiction. You are contradicting yourself as you first state "God" (instantly implying omnipotence) does not logically correlate with the next proposition "can't lift". You first said he can do everything, stop saying "can't"- how does your conclusion make any sense if the premises are illogical. You see- one makes one's own argument an illogical contradiction as a priori for God paradox- when simply the paradox is created within its own illogical stance and the "logic" itself is invalid, making absurd propositions. Next up- the burden of proof is upon me- perhaps an argument against the Schrondigers cat scenario, which is a very good assumption for anything: unless proven, it is both. Classic, yet ever so powerful, causation argument. Everything has a cause, and this cause has an effect, which in turn has a cause. We know that the big bang portrays a beginning/start- it is an effect- what is its cause? It is illogical to say that it created itself, for to create itself it must exist before it existed, which is an illogical paradox. Therefore, a cause outside of the bounds of the universe must of have caused this effect (beginning of the space/time). The most logical "cause" of the big bang is a deity, as it exists outside of the bounds of the space/time continuum. "What was the cause of God" is the most basic refute, and I will happily respond to it so that you won't sweat typing it out. The first premise is "everything has a cause". This is logically derived by a posteriori- "truth" by the means of empirical evidence. This evidence all stems from the universe and its bounds and our perception of it- for example, we know that me punching someone in the face (the cause) has an effect- a bruise on the cheek, and that cause (me punching) itself was an effect from another cause (i.e. me being angry). But here's the catch- all this is derived from the universe and its constricted dimensions and nature. God is outside of these bounds of the universe and therefore does not need a "cause" as cause and effect are concepts only found in the universe (since this is all that we are exposed to). This is where the trail of "cause and effect" stops. Not at the big bang, as it is part of time/space of the universe and its logic, but rather, stops at God who in theory does not require by any means a first cause. He is of nature outside of the bounds of logic reasoned by us and logic offered by the universe. He is eternal. He has no beginning, so he needs no cause. Here is, in a sense, is the a priori "proof" for Schrondiger's cat that is necessary to determine if he exists or not- which from what we derived by pure reason, as far as we know- he does exist. Care to extend, rebut or propose anything? :)