God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe

Thank you SNP1 for challenging me to this highly controversial topic.I will define some crucial definitions that haven't yet been defined before we proceed with this debate.God: "Supreme Being"The term "being" is equated with having a mind. I will argue that a mind is the more likely explanation for the existence of our universe rather than an unconscious or mindless non-being cause."Supreme" meaning that this mind is greater than any mind that exists within our current material universe.Likely: "apparently qualified : suitable "http://www.merriam-webster.com...Therefore "more likely" means that in comparison to a competing explanation, one must explanation must be more apparently qualified or suitable than the other.If any definitions are contested, please let me know but I don't believe this should be an issue.As per rule format, this round is for arguments. In the previous round, you've argued your position against an intelligent design point-of-view so to be fair, I'll contrast my evidence against a naturalistic point-of-view this round and then specifically address your arguments in the following round.The Debate topic is "God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe"Notice that this topic ISN'T "a necessary cause" or "beginning of" the universe but rather it specifically states explanation for the existence of the universe so the necessary explanation must also be applied to cause and sustainer of the universe. Therefore, aspects of our universe that we currently observe are applicable to either theory.Extended Kalam Cosmological Argument:(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.(2) The universe began to exist.(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.(4) A cause cannot be the cause of its own existence without necessary preconditions.(5) The Big Bang marked the beginning of space, time, and energy.(6) from (5) the Big Bang must have a spaceless, timeless, immaterial cause.(7) Everything in the physical universe requires space, time, or energy as a necessary precondition to begin to exist.(8) The necessary preconditions allowing a cause in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment can only be transcendent of all physical preconditions - an abstract concept or a mind.(9) An abstract concept requires a mind to conceptualize it. Thus, an abstract concept is not the cause of the universe.(10) A mind is the necessary cause of the universe. ------This argument follows logically. Can anything create itself without the necessary preconditions required? Can a newspaper article be written without newspaper? Did the Big Bang really create space, time, and energy?Time: "Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."http://www.hawking.org.uk...Space: "Did space exist prior to the big bang? Most scientists would answer "No" to this question. The Big Bang marks the beginning of space and time as we know them, so there was no space before the Big Bang. I say "most scientists" rather than "all scientists" because the Big Bang itself is not completely understood, so it's possible that our understanding of this event will improve over time."http://www.ucolick.org...Matter and energy (matter = energy according to E=MC^2): "The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand."http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com...The Big Bang is the most supported mainstream scientific theory of how life began to exist"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang. In June, 1995, scientists were able to detect primordial helium, such as deuterium, in the far reaches of the universe. These findings are consistent with an important aspect of the Big Bang theory that a mixture of hydrogen and helium was created at the beginning of the universe.In addition, the Hubble telescope, named after the father of Big Bang theory, has provided certain clues as to what elements were present following creation. Astronomers using Hubble have found the element boron in extremely ancient stars. They postulate that its presence could be either a remnant of energetic events at the birth of galaxies or it could indicate that boron is even older, dating back to the Big Bang itself. If the latter is true, scientists will be forced once again to modify their theory for the birth of the universe and events immediately afterward because, according to the present theory, such a heavy and complex atom could not have existed."http://www.umich.edu...Gravitational waves also support Einstein's theory of relativity, and his theory supported the universe having a beginning (which he disregarded at first due to his own point of view that the universe having a beginning is absurd.)Thus far, the Big Bang "most likely" requires a cause that follows established scientific reasoning like the law of cause and effect where a cause precedes its effect. In addition, the Big Bang, which marks the beginning of space, time, and energy, cannot be the cause of its own existence due to the law of cause and effect in addition to required preconditions. Therefore, the effect of the Big Bang requires a transcendent cause beyond physical properties and the best candidate for that cause without preconditions is a mind. Possible naturalistic explanations such as quantum fluctuations or vacuums require space in order to occur including the virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence within a dimension of space (creating a negative gravitational exponent).Thus far, I have argued that God is a necessary cause for the existence of the universe. Next, I will argue that God explains phenomena or sustained attributes of our universe better than naturalism. Objective morality(1) some morals are objective(2) objective morals cannot exist if all morality is subjective(3) naturalism requires that all morals are subjective given that objective purpose without objective purpose is contradictory.(4) Given that some morals are objective, all morality is not subjective(5) Therefore, God is a more likely cause for our existence than naturalism.This follows a format of:(a), (b), or (c) is true. (a) requires that (Z) isn't true(Z) appears to be trueTherefore, (b) or (c) are more likely.(a) meaning naturalism, (b) meaning intelligent design, and (c) meaning all other. (Z) meaning objective morality. Given that (a) is unlikely given that (Z) appears to be true, (a) becomes more less likely than (b) or (c). Many of my conclusions from other my arguments follow this type of reasoning. Support for objective morality: There has never been any record in human existence regardless of religion, culture, nationality, etc., allowing rape or murder without sufficient cause. Therefore, empirical evidence shows that some morals appear to be objective rather than subjective. It is also intuitively true collectively that these actions are always morally wrong. Logically, one would not argue that morality is relative because people committing rape and murder are just as justified in committing their actions are moral as you are claiming they are unjust. It would not be objectively immoral for every human being to be systematically raped and murdered (extreme example but it follows logically if all morality is subjective.) The origin of intelligence(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information.(2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity.(3) intelligence, defined as specified-complexity, is the by product of an intelligent mind. (4) Therefore, the specified-complexity that nature exhibits occurs because it was created by an intelligent mind.(5) The mind exists as a being. The mind which created all intelligence is the supreme being.(6) Thus, a supreme being is the originator of all intelligence.Specified-complexity are patterns that are both specified and complex. We wouldn't assume that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion. We know that it was written by intelligent beings because the elaborate translations that were found were specified and complex patterns for the purpose on conveying translation. Cells in our body mirror this same specified-complexity. Cells function using their micro-organelles to carry out purposes specific to larger bodily functions, none of which are arbitrary in purpose, complexity, or function.Human beings have intrinsic worth (1) human beings have value(2) this value is either intrinsic or extrinsic(3) no extrinsic criteria is needed to value a human being(4) therefore human beings have intrinsic valueWe would rescue a dying baby on the side of the road for no reason, donate to charity without retribution, and the controversy over abortion rests on whether a fetus is considered human without necessary extrinsic evaluation because humans are intrinsically valuable. Intrinsic worth automatically follows (1) an objectively purposeful existence, and (2) support for objective morality given that morals determine actions of purpose.These evidences support God being the more likely cause for our existence. I await my opponent's rebuttals in the next round.