God most likely exists

I thank tejretics for challenging me to this debate, and to our advisors to agree to assist us. I, too, am rather excited to have the chance to debate the existence of God, and am enthralled to do so with one of this site's best. I agree to the definitions, rules, structure, and format.With formalities complete, I will begin the debate as per the Debate Structure.Kalam Cosmological Argument P1) Everything that begins to exist has an cause. P2) The universe began to exist. C) Therefore the universe has a cause. P1 is rooted in the Law of Cause and Effect. If one sees a book flying across the room, anyone would argue that something caused it to fly across the room. I will not spend much time defending it unless Con has objections to it. The Scientific Evidence for the second premiss is the Big Bang itself (which we do no endorse). According to the Big Bang Model of the beginning of the Universe, the Universe came into existence about 15 billion years ago [1]. Furthermore, the BGV Theorem proved that our universe is expanding and that a universe that is expanding has to have a beginning [2]. So now we have a cause of the universe. If you think about what the Universe is: all of spacetime reality, all matter and energy; it follows that if the universe has a cause, that cause must be very powerful, nonphysical, immaterial, and beyond space and time (since both wouldn’t exist sans the universe) [1]. One thing that it cannot be is abstract, because abstract things such as numbers can’t cause anything. So now we have a very powerful, nonphysical, immaterial creator of the universe that is beyond space and time. This Sounds a lot like God. One common question that many Atheists ask is “What caused God?” The Pool Table ArgumentCrafted by Salam Morcos (his website is source 3), attempts to establish that there is at least 1 uncaused cause. P1) Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis)P2) There is a finite number of past causes.3) Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 ... cn4). Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C. Using Recursive process: 5. Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it?6. If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof7. If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it8. Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx9. Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1 10. Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10 The recursive process will loop until either: a) An uncaused cause is found in step 5, or b) After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof. Conclusion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. There's no escape. Argument From Intelligent Design. The universe is governed by constants such as the Gravitational Constant and many like it. The interesting thing is that if any of them varied slightly the universe would not be life-permitting. Here is the amazing part: because of the probability of these constants being different, the chance of the universe being life permitting is less than 1 in 10^10^123 [4]. To say that this due to chance is simply unreasonable. To say that this is due to necessity would mean that the universe has to be this way. The Scientific Community would disagree with this, “the universe does not have to be as it is: it could have been otherwise”[5]. We contend that that the most probable explanation for the way that the universe is would be because of a a Designer. Argument from Irreducible Complexity Irreducible Complexity will be defined as that which“cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional [6].” P1) If irreducibly complex biological structures exist, then evolution is false. P2) Irreducibly complex biological structures exist. C) Therefore, evolution is false. P1 is not at all a controversial premise. For support, We use the bacterial flagellum motor. It has been described as:“so breathtakingly elegant and mesmerizing that the sheer engineering brilliance of the flagella motor and, indeed, the magnitude of the challenge it brings to evolution cannot be properly appreciated…[7].” One may object that the T3SS is precursor to the motor, but this is simply false. The T3SS only composes 1/4 of the flagellum motor. Casey Luskin explains how this is problematic: “[this] does not help one account for how the fundamental function of the flagellum – its propulsion system- evolved [8].” He even explains why the view claiming exaptation plus the T3SS can account for the flagellum is wrong: “[Miller] wrongly characterizes irreducible complexity as focusing on the non-functionality of sub-parts. In contrast, Behe properly tests irreducible complexity by assessing the plausibility of the entire functional system to assemble in a step-wise fashion… Miller misconstrued the proper way of testing irreducible complexity, and his argument amounts to this: ‘if my laptop cord can also be used to power my toaster, then my laptop is no longer irreducibly complex [9].”And so continues the Assault on Reason ______________________________________________________ [1] http://www.hawking.org.uk...[2] http://arxiv.org...[3] http://ihavetoargue.blogspot.com...[4] http://www.discovery.org...[5] http://cosmos.asu.edu...[6] http://www.discovery.org...[7] http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com...[8] http://www.evolutionnews.org...[9] Ibid