It is likely that a God or gods exist

I present three arguments in order to affirm the resolution. Kalam Cosmological Argument This argument can be formulated in the following way. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence. The first premise is obvious to just about anyone. Our practical experience confirms that things do not pop into existence out of nothing. Moreover, for something to come out of nothing is metaphysically impossible. Nothing has no properties. Also, if universes could pop into existence out of nothing, why doesn't anything and everything pop into being out of nothing with no cause? We do not see horses pop into existence in our living rooms. Due to both metaphysical and empirical reasons, the first premise seems very plausible. Hence, the crucial premise is the second premise. Some nonbelievers claim that the universe has an infinite past and has never begun to exist. However, the premise that the universe began to exist can be found in any science textbook. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe began approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Additionally, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Singularity Theorem (BGV) shows that any universe which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than zero has to have had a finite beginning, with very few exceptions [1]. Even if my opponent denied the standard cosmological model, the Big Bang Theory, my opponent would have to show that his alternative model is an exception to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Singularity Theorem. Otherwise, the BGV Theorem provides strong scientific evidence to believe that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Moreover, the very notion of an infinite past is metaphysically impossible. This is because the idea that an infinite number of things can actually exist is metaphysically impossible. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Mathematics gives contradictory answers. See the Hilbert Hotel paradox [2]. In truth, while the notion of potential infinity is useful in mathematics, the concept of an actual infinity is metaphysical nonsense. This suggests that rather than there being an infinite past, the universe must have a finite past and hence must have begun to exist. Given premises 1 and 2, the conclusion that the universe has a cause of its existence naturally follows. Since the universe consists of all time, space, and matter, the creator of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial. Moreover, the cause of the universe must also be personal. This is due to several reasons, but here is one of them. The only things that can possess timelessness and immateriality that we know of are abstract objects and disembodied, supernatural minds. But abstract objects cannot cause anything. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be a disembodied mind, a supernatural creator of the universe which qualifies as a god. The Fine-Tuning Argument Physicists commonly agree that the universe is "fine-tuned" for the conditions of life. Many constants in the universe are fine-tuned for life in the sense that if these constants were very slightly changed, intelligent life could never exist. To give an example, physicist Luke Barnes says that the amount of matter in the initial stage of our universe is fine-tuned to one part in 10^55 [3]. That is a 1 followed by 55 zeros! And that is just one of numerous examples. This form of the teleological argument works by using the fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of design. It can be formulated as follows. 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is the result of law, chance, or design. 2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not the result of law or chance. 3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design. The chance that the universe is fine-tuned by accident is almost zero. And no law of the universe seems to suggest that the cosmological constants need to be the way they are. That means that the fine-tuning must be due to design. But that implies that there is a designer of the universe, quite possibly one who was interested in creating life. Since such a designer would be timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial, that creator would fulfill the qualifications of a god as we know it. Argument from Religious Experiences Many people are theists due to the cosmological argument and the argument from design. However, many people are also theists for an additional reason- religious experiences. Throughout human history up to the present day, most cultures have had a concept of religion and gods. According to the Pew Research Center, today more than 80% of people in the world belong to a religious group [4]. For a few of these people, God"s existence may simply be a comparatively abstract fact about reality, in the way that "there are seven days in a week" is a comparatively abstract fact. However, for a large proportion of believers, their belief in God or gods is much more than a mere abstract fact. They believe that they have or have had real religious experiences. Some Christians call such experiences "bearing witness to the holy spirit. " Likewise, people of practically all religions report knowing that God or gods exist due to feeling the inner presence of a divine being. This fact can be awkward for a naturalist. For on naturalism, there is no reason to expect that people would have any religious experiences at all. If God or gods do not exist, why should people have such powerful, moving experiences? If theism is true, there is a very straightforward explanation, namely that God or gods exist. The atheist, however, is hard-pressed to come up with any explanation for why people have religious experiences. Unless atheists can provide a compelling explanation for religious experiences, they will be hard-pressed to convince anyone who believes that they feel the presence of the divine in their daily lives. So my opponent must provide a naturalistic explanation for religious experience in order to give the atheistic worldview any credibility at all. The atheist might object to this argument, questioning the validity of religious experience due to the apparent contradictions between the doctrines of different religions. In response, the atheist would do well to consider the parable of the elephant and the blind men [5]. In the parable, blind men touch different parts of the elephant and come to greatly different conclusions about the nature of the elephant. This story serves as a useful metaphor to explain religious pluralism and defend against the atheist"s objection. Just because people claim different things about the nature of the Divine does not mean that the Divine is not real. It simply means that people interpret religious experiences differently, rather than meaning that gods (the elephant in the parable) do not exist. Conclusion I have presented three arguments for the resolution, namely the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experiences. If my opponent wishes to show that atheism is true, he must refute all three of these arguments and construct his own positive case for atheism. I again thank my opponent for accepting this debate. [1] See the 2003 paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin entitled Inflationary Spacetimes are not past-complete. . http://arxiv.org... [2] . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com.... I will not rehash the long argument here, since this source explains the thought experiment in a much better way than I could with the limited space I have in this debate. [3] . http://ia902708.us.archive.org... [4] . http://www.pewforum.org... [5] The parable may be found at . http://www.cs.princeton.edu...