God exists.

1 My definition of a deistic god, is a power or entity beyond nature (supernatural) that caused, ontologically, the existence of the multiverse or universe in so that something rather than nothing could come into existence. This god is non-interventionist in that they do not intervene in the universe or govern it in any way after their initial creating act. As it is outside of the nature, I do not think anything can be said about the qualities of this power or entity, such as whether it is eternal. This means it could have either created from ex materia or ex nihilo (from something external to it and the universe or from nothing). 2 Our debate centres around, as I understand it, the dichotomy that either a causing god exists or that multiverse or universe existence is perpetual and therefore without start. However, both options require that we concede some logical principles that we deem necessary and unbreakable. If a causing god exists, then we have to admit something outside of nature that cannot be explained by scientific inquiry. We have to give up our notion that everything can be explained providing we have enough empirical data of the natural world and what’s more concede that something can go beyond our idea of causation. The natural response to hearing of a creating god is the question ‘what caused the causer?’ As Parmenides wrote ‘ex nihilo, nihil fit’, out of nothing, nothing comes. Yet as a power that transcends our natural laws, I would be inclined to say that we cannot know whether it is subject to our notion of ‘causation’. To assert a causeless existence would be a contradiction to not only science but what we believe possible. This is why, for argument’s sake, it must transcend us. It must be supernatural. The second possibility is problematic as well. It equally makes us concede to a causeless existence (that the universe or multiverse exists from no initial cause). I have included the multiverse theory in my argument to highlight that it doesn’t solve the problem of why something exists rather than nothing. Most scientific minds would agree with the Big Bang theory, that our universe has a beginning, but then argue that it came into existence from parts of existence we do not yet understand. This would opt for two separate sets of laws: the laws of the multiverse or whatever precedes our universe and our universal laws as we understand through nature. If we define the natural as deriving our universal laws, then the multiverse would have to be defined as supernatural. My real case for deism centres around this premise. Why advocate an entity, a deistic god, over a model of the multiverse which isn’t subject to the natural laws of our universe? Aren’t we anthropomorphising our origins by making it begin with a willing? With a creator? This I think is a strong point. I would note that here you might want to attack my definition of a deistic god as a power or entity and not a particular being for this is exactly how I should avoid this problem. An entity is defined as ‘something that exists apart from other things, having its own independent existence’ (1). I see no reason why this cannot be attributed to a supernatural multiverse either. A supernatural, independent existence that started the universe and is completely impersonal to it. If we accept this the definition for a god, then whatever precedes our universe is a god. If god must be a particular being, if still impersonal, why cannot we attribute the entire multiverse as a particular being as a whole? The founding assumption is that god must be personal and have thoughts and intentions like man; this I would ask you to defend. Sources: (1) http://dictionary.cambridge.org... On a formal note, I will include evidence if my opponent wants an evidence-based debate, but would remind them that the scientific models around this debate are highly technical and that this debate can be done with simple a priori reasoning. My argument is primarily logical but I will use evidence if I need to defend it. And on an informal note, I would like to say that I’m personally atheist but have read deist scholars like Paine and Leibniz. So, don’t feel you have to go easy on me as not to offend my beliefs.