t is more probable than improbable that a Monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Okay, so I shall address your argument in several points. Defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument: Can our universe pop in and out of existence? Hod does this affect the Causal Principle. Truth is that we don't know whether the Universe can pop in and out of existence. I've heard different theories from astrophysicists and cosmologists. However, it doesn't really matter. If a God does indeed exist the popping in and out of atoms and particles does not disprove such God's existence. Defending the end of the Universe. There is a consensus among cosmologists and astrophysicists that the Universe will end. The question is simply how it will end. The Big rip and the Heath death seem to be the most plausible according to the laws of thermodynamics. However here is the thing. If the Universe did not end and of course one cannot be certain, this does not disprove God. To disprove argument for God one must make it more probable than improbable that P2 is incorrect which would mean that P3 is incorrect. Does God have a cause (Leibniz Cosmological argument.) The Leibniz Cosmological/Contingency argument: P1. Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation. P2. The universe has an explanation for its existence which is grounded in a necessary being P4. The universe exists P4. Therefore, the existence of the Universe has an explanation (refer to P1, 3) P5. Therefore, the explanation for the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (refer to P2, 4) C. Therefore a necessary being exists and that being is what we call God. Now to show the soundness of this argument. All I need to do is successfully defend P1,2 and 3. P1 is confirmed by the Principle of sufficient reason which states that everything must have a reason and a cause. An example of this is every Scientific Fact. P2. Is confirmed by Modern Big Bang Cosmology which I address in my introduction concerning the Kalam Cosmological argument. Refer to round one of this discussion. Also, check out the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Also, check the Kochen-Specker Theorem. A Necessary being in this context must be A non-physical and intelligent mind with the ability to create. This being if it exists is free from infinite regressions. Basically, the being we call God is immaterial, conscious and who is omnipotent, omniscient and necessary. So you might argue why can't the universe come from nothing like subatomic particles. This is because subatomic particles come from a fluctuation of energy contained in a vacuum state. This objection is simply a based on a misunderstanding of physics. Subatomic particles come from energy. This objection would be an example of an infinite regression. This confirms P3,4,5 and by logical deduction the Conclusion. If you would like I can further back this up by defending the Digital physics argument for the existence of God. If you would like further elaboration. Talk to me in the comments. On the properties of God The God I have argued for is immaterial and does not consist of the matter making up our universe because the idea is that God transcends the Natural world. Please elaborate on the undying premise. The Moral Argument and the Logical version of the Problem of Suffering and Evil The Moral argument, if it is indeed sound, shows that Moral and Ethical truths are objective and not based on cultural views and that such truths are grounded in the existence of a morally perfect being whom we would call God and that such "God" is worthy of our worship an praise. I will be arguing against's Epicurus' argument which goes like this. If God is willing to prevent evil but not able than he is not all powerful If he is able but not willing than he is not good but if he is both able and willing, how can evil exist? If he is neither able nor willing, why call him God? In other words. the argument can be summed up in three premises P1. It is logically impossible for God and suffering to coexist P2. We Know fully well that suffering exists Con. Therefore, God does not exist. The first statement is not sound. First, we must as the question is there any explicit contradictions between the statements that an all powerful, all loving God exist and that suffering exist. Well, the answer is no. An example of a contractionary statement is that David is married but also a bachelor. The purpose of the two statements contradicts and thus are inconsistent with logic. So here is the problem with the first premise. It suggests that God as an all-powerful being can create any world he wants and that as an all-loving being God prefers a world without suffering. Is this true? Can God create any world he wants? What if he wants to create a world where people have free will. You can't force someone to freely choose to do something good or evil. Forcing free chooses is like making a square circle. It's nonsense. It is not that God lacks the power to do so but that God operates within the Laws of Logic. So the first assumption is not true. What about the second assumption. Well, how could we possibly know this? We all know of cases were suffering lead to a long-term benefit. If it is even possible for God to have reason to do this then the second premise is not necessarily true. For someone to use this argument to disprove God, they would have to show that it is logically impossible for free will to exist and that God has no good reason to permit suffering. Answering the Question "How do you know that your God is real" The answer simply depends on whether Jesus Christ as described in the bible existed and I think that there is a strong case for Christ and I will give you a video to watch. Defending P2 of the KCA I have some videos for you to deal with your arguments Is tie Infinite? What do Stephen Hawking and other cosmologists and physicists say about it? Lets find out http://www.hawking.org.uk... The Kalam is a sound argument for God. If true it shows the existence of a Creator that transcends nature and the universe. I believe I have successfully argued that the argument is true.