God Exists

Cosmology The Kalam Cosmological Argument (the form which you presented in your debate) is trivial, and becomes redundant upon further questioning. I would like to speak about premise one " "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." What truly began to exist? Everything in the universe hasn't simply began to exist, it is simply a rearrangement of pre-existing particles and cells. Take a car, for example. The car hasn't just began to exist, but the metals that were in the earth were used to create the car. It didn't begin to exist. The only thing that has begun to exist, is the universe itself. So now we are left with an argument that states: P1) The Universe has a cause. P2) The Universe began to exist. C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause. As P2 can be left out, as it is now redundant, we now have: P1) The Universe has a cause. C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause. You also mention in your reasoning for P1 that, "We do not observe things just popping into existence without any cause," but I would argue that this is up for debate, due to new research and discoveries into quantum physics. I will link to some websites that can explain infinitely better than I can in the comments. The argument also commits the Fallacy of Composition. By definition, there is no 'outside the Universe,' so all we can base evidence off is observations we make in the universe. By saying that, " Everything that begins to exist [within the Universe] has a cause," you are applying characteristics to the whole universe from the part of it that we observe. A simplified version of this would be, "The bricks in the wall are small, therefore the wall is small." I will admit that this isn't game-ending, as, using the same analogy, "The bricks in the wall are red, therefore the wall is red," does make logical sense. Idealism There are a huge amount of issues with the way you argued your case for Idealism. You use inductive reasoning and rely heavily on each premise to hold up the argument. Essentially, if you were to disprove one premise, your whole argument falls apart. Your reasoning behind premise two is illogical. The fact is that pain is an electrical impulse sent to the brain in order to alert us to something being wrong and to help us resolve an issue. The fact that pain is an electrical impulse is also shown by scientists currently developing robots to feel pain. Robots obviously do not have a mind or consciousness. Taste works in much the same way, with taste buds sending information to the brain about the food, which creates the sensation we know as taste. As the mind is an emergent property of the brain, it is deeply rooted in the material world, and is in fact part of it. Morality It is incredibly likely that morality is a product of evolution, because when natural selection is correct, it makes sense for an animal to be moral to aid with the survival of the species. This is shown by humans closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees, having qualities such as empathy and forming friendships. Morality would have also evolved with the emergence of society, law and order. What is incredibly unlikely, however, is that a being created man to be moral. This is shown by different cultures use of different laws and some more primitive tribes on the planet having very different moral codes to what is deemed acceptable in modern day society. You justify premise 3 by saying asserting that "objective morality," must be true. However, society bases itself around subjective morality " such as a jury in court and so on. Morality isn't objective, as it changes. For example, in the 18th century, slavery was seen as morally permissible, but now it is seen as morally incorrect. Thus morality cannot be objective as you claim it to be.