Why Deism is the most logical stance to take with regards to explaining the natural world

Deism = belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. accepting the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. In this round, I will be making my case to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a creator God to this universe exists. Point one : Kalam cosmological argument. P: Everything that *begins* to exist has a cause P2 : the universe began to exist Conclusion: the universe has a cause First premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause Science : - Universal law of cause and effect - Law of causality: every effect has a cause - Law of action and reaction - Casual principle The effect in the top four laws or principles would be the universe coming into existence which in tandem must have a cause. Logic and Reason: - Nothing can not cause or produce something / Ex nihilo nihil fit - Out of nothing, nothing comes so the effect which is the beginning of the universe can not magically appear out of nowhere and must be the result of an entity -Something can not pop into existence from nothing. - If something did come out of nowhere it is no short of magic or is the same as pulling bunnies out of magic hat. - if things do come out of nothing, why dont we see that happening all time? Why won't a bike pop into existence out of nothing as we speak? - Things do not come out of nowhere and they must need a cause to justify where they came from Second premise: The universe has a beginning The universe is not eternal: - Second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases overtime. If the universe is eternal we would have maximum entropy and no usable energy by now. But we still have usable energy and entropy is not at its maximum so the universe is not eternal. Second law of thermodynamics restated means the universe is running out of usable energy overtime. IF the universe has been here forever , we would have run outof usable energy by now. We have not run out of usale energy yet so they universe has not been here forever and is not eternal. - Should not all events expected to happen in the future have happened already in an eternal universe. For instance, Humans expecting the sun to become a red giant. If we are expecting the sun to become a red giant in the future, should not that event already have happened in the past if the universe is eternal. - The universe is expanding and as estimated by the majority of the scientific community the universe has always been expanding in the past from a finite small beginnig. If the universe is eternal in the past, how did it expand eternally. Eternal expansion?? but if eternal expansion is true, should not we expect our universe to be much much bigger and more vast. - a past-eternal universe implies an infinite succession of events in the past, but does that not cause infinite regression which is impossible. The universe had a beggining : -BGV singularity theorem states that any expanding universe that has been expanding throughout its history can not be eternal and must have an absolute beginning in the past when it came into existence which eben applies to the multiverse if such a thing exists. Moreover it states that inflating and deflating universes are too unstable to actually exist - arvind Borde, alan Guth and alexander Vilenkin - Cosmic background radiation indicates that the universe came into existence by an explosion in the past when the universe came into existence which means the universe had a beginning in the past and is not ternal. - redshift of galaxies indicates that the universe has been expanding in the past and started in a small singularity which was the beginning of the universe when it came into existence -Vesto Slipher, alexander friedmann and Georges La maitre - "all the evidence we have says the universe has a beginning" - alexander Vilenkin ================================================================================================= Conclusion : the universe has a cause and that cause is something similar to God. Up to this point I have merely proved that the universe began to exist and that the universe must have a cause. I have not proven that cause to be god. I will do that now. So the universe began to exist in the past and is not eternal and of course the universe must have a cause and did not pop out of nowhere nor did it just magically appear. It must have a cause. Let us imagine that cause. since the universe can not cause itself (because that would imply the universe existed before it did not exist which does not make sense), the cause of the universe has to be beyond the space-time universe and must exist outside of the space-time universe. -That cause must be supernatural because it exists outside of the nature it created nature and therefore is not subject to it. -That cause must be extremely powerful if not all-powerful to create such a vast and enormous universe. -That cause must be extremely intelligent if not all-knowing to create such complex concepts in the universe like the neutron star and the black hole. -That cause must be timeless and eternal since it exists outside the universe it created which contains time. If the cause is outside of the universe, it is outside of time and therefore not subject to time making it timeless and eternal and therefore uncaused if it is eternal -That cause must be spaceless because it exists outside the universe which contains all the space and therefore not subject to space making the cause spaceless. -That cause must be immaterial because it exists outside the material world and therefore not subjected to material. Call me insane but that cause resembles God in so many ways Point two : The arguement from contigenecy P: Everything that exists has an explanation either being self-caused, neccessary or an external cause P2: The universe exists P3: Not self-caused nor neccessary Conclusion : Universe has an external cause Premise one : Everything that exists has an explanation either being self-caused, neccessary or an external cause Science and philosphy: - Law of conservation of energy - Universal law of cause and effect - Law of causality: every effect has a cause - Law of action and reaction - Casual principle -Principle of sufficient reason Safe to assume premise one is correct Premise 2 : the universe exists Safe to assume premise 2 is correct Premise 3 : Not self-caused nor neccessary The universe can not cause itself because that implies that the universe had to exist before it did not exist in order for it to create itself The universe is not neccessary because only mathematical entities are neccessary while the universe itself is made up of contigent componenets like stars and planets that are definetly not neccessary and are definetly contignent because they could have easily not formed if gases were not at the right place therefore making them contingent. Since the universe is made up of contigent things like stars and planets that could not have happened if some gases were out of place, the universe itself becomes contingent ad unneccessarry. Moreover, IF the universe was neccessary, we could not imagine a different universe with different laws but we could imagine a different universe with different laws where gravity could not exist making this universe contingent and not neccessary in essence. safe to assume premise 3 is correct conclusion: the universe has an external cause The external cause is outside or external to the nature of the universe so it must be supernatural or beyond nature and must also contain the characteristics discussed in the conclusion of the kalam cosmological arguement I would like con to elaborate on 2 other arguements. Like the arguement from fine-tuning of the universe and the arguement from morality