God exists in a non-intelligent entity

This struck me as an odd topic. Nonetheless, I thank my opponent for posting. Observation: In order for me to win this debate, I need only give reasons to think that God, in the traditional sense of the word (omnipotence, omniscience, necessity, etc.), likely exists. Observation Two: The pro does not give any positive reasons to think that his conception of "god" is true. Indeed, my opponent has not even described what "god" would be like except to say that it is like "gravity," or some "force." As I will point out, these are incoherent and meaningless attributes. This, I will defend the following two conditionals: (1) If God exists, then my opponent's case falls (2) If God does not exist, then my opponents case falls (1) This is true for reasons already given, and my opponent concedes this. So here are a few arguments to prove the antecedent of this conditional: God exists. A) The Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause Premise One: My opponent concedes to this (albeit in a rather unclear way): "Something cannot exist without something to cause/create it." I would disagree with this statement because only contingent beings have causes, not necessary beings. Either way, my opponent agrees. Premise Two: Here my opponent also seems to agree when he mentions the Big Bang. Nonetheless, let me quote from the Vilenkin et al theorem: "Our argument shows that null and time- like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in infla- tionary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in pre- vious work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when ex- tended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the bound- ary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time." [1] Thus, we have strong reasons to affirm premise 2. From which the conclusion follows necessarily; the universe has a cause. Now, contrary to what my opponent says about the nature of the cause; that it is some kind of "force," the cause, by definition, must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial since time, space and matter/energy originated from the cause. Therefore it cannot be a force. Thus, the cause is immaterial. Dr. Craig gives a good argument for the personhood of the cause: "There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma,and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time.Philosophers call this type of causation"agent causation,"and because the agent is free,he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about condi- tions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly frometernitycouldfreelywill tostandup;thus,atemporal effect arisesfroman eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with f ree will couldhavefreelybrought theworldintobeingat that moment.Inthisway, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world withabeginning.Byexercisinghiscausal power,hethereforebringsit about that a world with a beginning comes to exist.125 So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. I n this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through thefreewill of apersonal Creator." B) The Ontological Argument. Possible worlds are ways the world might have been but is not actually. If something is possible, it exists in some possible world. For example, unicorns do not in fact exist, but their existence is possible and therefore they exist in some possible world. God is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and who exists in every possible world. So IF God exists, He exists necessarily since its absurd to say that something contingent could bring into being God. Thus, IF God exists, He is necessary. IF God does not exist, then, necessarily, he does not exist. 1. Its possible that God exists 2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world 3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world 4. If God exists in every possible world, then God exists in the actual world 5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists 6. Therefore, God exists If P1 is true, the rest follows necessarily. 3 follows from 2 because God, as we have seen, cannot as a necessary being exist in only one world. Necessary beings exist in every possible world. Thus, if it is the case that God is possible, the He exists. So, why should we think that God is possible? Because the concept seems coherent and void of contradictions. Anything that is coherent is metaphysically possible. For example, it is coherent that I could have been born with three legs. Therefore, this is possible. Thus, it seems clear that my opponents abstract conception of God is denied. (2) Even if the above does not work, and God does not exist, my opponent still fails. Thus, let us assume that God, as described above, does not exist. My opponent still loses because to use the word "God" to signify a force is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. A universal "force" like "gravity" without being able to "think" seems to be a natural phenomena and therefore not worthy of what is meant by "God;" indeed it is somewhat deceiving. It seems incoherent that there should be a singular cause of everything that cannot "think," and more plausible that, without God as argues above, there are a multiplicity of causes working in conjunction with each other. For example, if there is a universe outside of our own, it is conceivable that (and remember, this is assuming atheism) the cause for our universe's origination is another universe, therefore not a singular "force." So a lack of defense by my opponent, coupled with his vague conception of God, means that I should absolutely win since even if the arguments I gave for God do not work, this concept is incoherent.