There is a God

thanks for accepting. Of course I will be respectful "Cosmological argument" (or existing argument as you state it) P1: everything that exists has a cause of existence Here I already disagree. Because we have no data of something coming into existence without a cause, Doesn't mean it can't happen. What I also can do is the same thing about God. Because we have no data or evidence that a God exists, Doesn't mean he is not there. It's the same argument. I'm not claiming "God doesn't exists". All I'm saying is that I am unconvinced because of a lack of demonstrable evidence. P2: There cannot be an infinite series of past causes This is a positive claim where you claim that it is impossible to be an infinite series of past causes. How did you come to this conclusion and where is your evidence for that? P3: Therefore, There exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, The first cause always existed. Because this is a "There is a God" debate, I'm assuming that your end conclusion (the first cause) is God. How do you know it is not a rainbow colored unicorn? "Argument from Design" We recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs. A building requires a builder, A painting requires a painter, Creation requires a creator. I agree on all point. How did you determine it was a building? How did you determine it was a painting? How did you determine it was a creation? When you talk about the universe, Labeling it a creation in order to claim that there is a creator, Is a dishonest apologetic. It is a circular argument, Where you are injecting the very thing you are trying to proof, Right in the beginning. When you say "This had to have been designed", What you are saying is, It is not possible or not probable for this particular set of circumstances, To come about by natural means. How did you determine that? The "What are the odds" argument With respect to the universe. . . What are the odds? When we are talking about odds and probability we are talking about a ratio (or comparison) of favorable results to possible results. As far as I can tell, This is something you can't calculate. How do you know that this isn't the only possible universe? How do you know that the mechanisms by which universes come into being, Can produce anything other that the universe we are living in? You have to assume that there are other possibilities in order to calculate the odds other than 100%. We don't know enough about the universe and how it was formed to be able to make a determination about what other universes are possible. What other universes can be produced by the mechanism because we don't fully understand that mechanism. What about the multiverse? Maybe there are billions of universes where there are intelligent beings trying to calculate the odds that a universe like theirs would come into existence? But the mistake there is that they also think that their universe is the only favorable result when in reality there are billions of universes that are the favorable result that produce intelligent life that are capable of asking the question, What are the odds that a universe could exist. But for the sake of argument let's say you are able to calculate the odds. No matter what number you come up with, What you are saying is that the odds of a universe like ours coming to existence by natural means, Is so improbable that it is more probable that the universe came into existence by supernatural means. How did you calculate that. How did you determine the probability of supernatural means? If you are going to calculate the probability of something based on the possible outcomes and its relationship to the favorable outcomes, How many possible supernatural causes do we know of? None How could you say that the supernatural cause is more probable than a natural one? No matter how improbable it seems, It's still on firmer footing than a supernatural cause "The Argument From Conscience" I don't really have a long answer for this, But it looks like an argument from ignorance. "The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, Morally, With rightful demands for complete obedience. " There you are basically saying. . . Because everything else was not applying to me, Therefore the only thing left is god. 4. The Common Consent Argument -Belief in God"that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due"is common to almost all people of every era. Just because a lot of people believed something. . Doesn't make it true. Some odd years ago people also believed the earth was flat. -Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not. Yes they were or could be proven by my flat earth line -It is most plausible to believe that they have not. No its not -Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists. No its not that last part I don't understand so I'm gonna ignore that part so my apologies for that