God Likely Exists

First debate, big whoop. The probability of God existing is greater than the probability of God not existing, and is more rational. This is based on the following points: (my own version of the cosmological argument) 1. The universe must have been caused. *This is a natural, logical assumption based on intuition. Atheists counter by saying intuition is often wrong, and say the universe lacks causality, and that all matter/energy merely transfers from one state to another. ***Problem with above: A universe that is timeless would have to be infinite temporally and spatially. This leads to the infinite occurrence of all probabilities conceivable (Gods, aliens) across an infinite space time, leading to an infinity of supernatural occurrences. Even if the universe is infinite only temporally, that does not invalidate the above argument as a timeless universe would have generated all possible probabilities for the existence of any conceivable being. Ergo, this explanation substitutes one infinity (God) for infinite infinities (multiverse theory, B theory of time) this a violation of the law of parsimony - the simplest explanation is that there is one God. 2. Following from points made in (1), a finite, caused universe would necessarily need to be created by an entity not subject to the causes that succeeded it. *This is a natural, logical assumption assuming the points above are true. Atheists will likely say that there is there is no way to justify this being a personal God, and no way this God need be outside the realm of rules that govern the universe. **Problem: Such a God who can predate existence itself (assuming point 1 was true) can be assumed to be omnipotent, or at least powerful beyond human understanding. But the counter argument is also somewhat true - humanity has a vague, instinctive notion of what God is - but that is likely as far as we'll get without empirical, testable evidence. Conclusion: God is likelier to exist since the other probabilities are even more illogical. To all the atheists out there: have at me. I'm sure you'll find something wrong in my arguments. (not valid, independently critical, science-proven reasons of course, probably just semantics, obscure philosophical references, scientific "facts" with quantum physics/theoretical physics that I'll take joy in refuting, etc.) Trust me, I hate you just as much as you hate me. In fact, I probably hate you more. If I come across as disrespectful to you, good. I don't respect you. Now that I got that off my chest, any responses without any line of counter-reasoning are likely to be ignored. I'll respond, but just to insult you the way you likely insulted me. To all my theists out there: I hope you can defend me, and come to my aid. While I believe that theism is such a obviously correct concept that defense of it seems superfluous, it would be nice to get some proponents behind me, especially after all the anti-religious nonsense spewed by YouTube comments, debate.org, and so on. Facts about myself: Academic work, in a variety of STEM disciplines currently. Ex-Atheist, turned theist AFTER I started higher education and my scientific work - and saw the varying inconsistencies and logical errors in all branches of secularly taught knowledge. Sick and tired of lying morons being hailed as the arbiters of "truth", while decent religious people (simple, but good hearted) get shoved to the group of cavemen/superstitious fools. First debate, certainly won't be my last. P.S: Like most serious philosophers/logicians/metaphysical thinkers - I prefer going a priori for now, hence no sources. I expect that since atheists can't logically counter this argument (although they will try), they will resort to citing science or concepts that will only prove their ignorance of the field. But I will leave that path for them to take, I will be prepared for that as well.