t is more probable than improbable that a Monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Let us start with the Kalam Cosmological argument: P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2. The Universe began to exist. P3/C. Therefore the Universe has a cause Is the first premise true? Well, let's take a look. Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic, you've got a hat and a magician and if something can come into existence being from nothing, then why don't see this happening all the time? Everyday experience and Scientific evidence confirm our first premise. If something begins to exist it must have a cause, for example, a Chicken laying an egg. However what about our second premise. Did the Universe begin or has it always existed? Many atheists I've debated before have typically said that the Universe had been here forever. I quote British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, political activist and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell when I say "The Universe is just there and that's all". First, let's consider The Second Law of Thermodynamics which states the following: Processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. In simplicity, the law tells us The Universe is slowly running out of usable energy. That is the point. If the Universe had been here forever it would have run out of usable energy by now. The Second law points us to a universe that had a definite beginning. This is confirmed by a series of remarkable Scientific discoveries. In 1915 Albert Einstien presented his General Theory of Relativity, this allowed us for the first time to talk meaningfully about the past history of the Universe. Next Alexander Friedmann and Goerge Lemaitre each working with Einstein's equations predicted that the universe is expanding. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies, empirical evidence which confirmed not only that the Universe is expanding but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past (The Big Bang). It was a monumental discovery almost beyond comprehension. However, not everyone is fond of a finite Universe, so it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence but eventually, all failed the test of time. More recently three Cosmologists- Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that ANY UNIVERSE which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history CANNOT BE ETERNAL IN THE PAST, but must have an absolute beginning. This even applies to a multiverse (if there is such a thing). Alexander Vilenkin summed it up best when he said: "This means that Scientists can no longer hide behind a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning". Any adequate model must have a beginning. Just like the standard model. It's quite plausible then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true. THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE. Since the Universe can't call itself, it's cause must be beyond the space-time universe or continuum. Its cause must be SPACELESS, TIMELESS, IMMATERIAL, UNCAUSED AND UNIMAGINABLY POWERFUL. Much like the Christian GOD! Onto the Moral argument. P1. Morality is a rational enterprise P2. Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist P3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume that moral realism is grounded in a human source of rationality. P4. Premises 1, 2, and 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity (Refer to this video on the Contingency argument for further explanation: https://www.youtube.com...... ). P5. The source of necessity is what we call God (refer to video in Premise four) Con. Therefore, God exists. Is P1 sound? Yes, it is because Morality is deciphered through reason and logic. Just like mathematics and philosophical positions. We know that Morality cannot be based on naturalistic principles because you won't get moral and ethical truths through empirical testings. If someone is about to hurt someone else we cannot know how we ought to act. We can only reason that we do not act in a certain way. Confirming our first Premise. If the debate reaches that point I will address those who object to this aka those who support to non-cognitivism. Is the second premise sound? Yes, it is and hears why. Now before I defend Moral realism I would like to define Moral realism. Moral realism defined is summed up like this Moral realism is true even if no one believes it just like the laws of logic or the laws of physics. Moral realism is independent of Human Cognition but we can tap into moral realism using our cognition. Doing this will help us better operate in reality. Okay so Moral Realism defended: I am going to put a video for you to watch because I will not have enough typing space to type down all the arguments form Moral realism and so: https://www.youtube.com...... So what about P3. Is it sound? Yes, it is we cannot be the source of moral knowledge because we are not perfect beings and Hitler is a great example. We also do not know fully about moral facts. We fail to perform moral duties. We are also contingent beings (refer to Contingency argument for further explanation). For example, we discovered the laws of logic and mathematics but we did not make them. 2+2=4 even if no human exists. P3 follows logically from P1 and 2. Becuase we are contingent and fail to follow moral laws. Logical deduction shows us that P1 and 2 confirm that morality must be grounded in a necessary and rational source. The source must also be sentient. P4 is therefore confirmed. So the basis for morality must be A conscious rational necessary entity who would serve as the foundation for morality and whom we would like to for moral guidance. Logical deduction leads us to P5. If Moral Realism is true then the source for Morality is God simply using logical deduction we can confirm this. So what about the Conclusion is it sound? Yes the Ontology of Moral Realism (Ontology being the metaphysical study of the nature of being) grounds morality in a conscious rational necessary entity to whom the title of God is given (see the ontological argument for more info: https://www.youtube.com...... ) Let me give you an example when Chemist discovered that water was H2O they didn't merely stipulate that one was the other but rather they discovered that the terms mean the same thing. You see Good=God and God=Good. Moralism realism must be ground in unchanging beings and this is important as it shows that the moral argument can only be used to defend the existence of a Monotheistic God who is omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresent. My final statement is based on whether morality comes from evolution. This most likely didn't happen and even if it did it does not disprove moral realism. The moral argument is about the foundation for moral values and duties not how we came to k ow those truths. Moral epistemology deals with how we came to know moral values. As Dr. Frank Turek argues Moral laws are not chemical or biological: they are immaterial and come from personal agents. Chemistry and Biology are descriptive, not prescriptive; evolution describes what does survive, not what ought to survive. He preceded to give an example of rape and murder and how evolution would see moral changes in the name of human survival. If P2 of the Moral argument is sound than evolution can't account for morality. I await my opponents rebuttals.