God exists.

#1: The Cosmological argument P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2) The universe began to exist. C1) (from P1, P2) Therefore, the universe has a cause. P3) The cause would have to be timeless, immaterial, and personal. C2) (from C1, P3) Therefore, God exists. In defense of P1If something were to begin to exist coming out from nothing (without cause), there would be no reason why that thing came into existence and not something else. Therefore, it is logically impossible that something could begin to exist and not have a cause. In defense of P2It seems obvious that the universe would have began to exist. The alternative is that there has been an infinite regress of events, but this is impossible. If there was an infinite regress of events, then the time from T=0 to now would be infinite, however this cannot be true as infinity is not a quanitity/number. As Doctor of Philosophy and Theology William Lane Craig says "What is infinity minus infinity? " [1]. If the answer is zero, then infinity is not infinite as there are numbers lower than zero. If the answer is lower than zero, then it violates the law of non-contradiction as there would be more than one value of the same number [2]. C1This is the logical conclusion following the first and second premise. In defense of P3This cause would have to be timeless and immaterial as it would exist out of spacetime. It would have to be personal because it would have to choose to create the universe, the alternative being something else caused him to do it, making him then fit the definition of God. C2This is the logical conclusion following the first conclusion and the third premise. #2: The argument from the mentality of the physical world we experienceP1) If the physical world we experience does not reduce to the mental world, then the physical world we experience interacts with the mental world. P2) If the physical world we experience does not reduce to the mental world, then the physical world cannot interact with the mental world. C1) (from P1, P2) Therefore, due to the law of non-contradiction, the physical world we experience does reduce to the mental world. C2) (from C1) Therefore, a conscious mind is the basis and grounding for the universe. P3) The mind would have to be immaterial, timeless, and personal. C3) (from C2, P3) Therefore, God exists. Defense of P1It is clear that there is some link between the physical world and the mental world. People can get drunk on alcohol, a physical thing, which can affect their thoughts, which are non-physical things. Defense of P2This is necessarily true as if the physical world we experience does not reduce to the mental world, then the only way that it'd be possible for them to be linked is if they interacted, which they can't do if the physical world doesn't reduce to the mental world as they are entirely different things, and for them to interact without one reducing to another, they would have to not be entirely different things (i. e: share some properties), so it wouldn't actually be two different things. Interaction between them would be incoherent. C1This is the logical conclusion following the first and second premises. Defense of P3 (Same as defense of P3 in the first argument)C2This is the logical conclusion following the first conclusion and the third premise. #3: The Teleological argumentP1) The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity, or design. P2) It is not due to physical necessity and the odds are astronomically against it being due to chance. C1) (from P1, P2) Therefore, it is highly probable that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. P3) The fine-tuning of the universe being caused by design entails that there is a timeless, immaterial, and personal designer who caused the univere to be like this. C2) (from C1, P3) Therefore, it is extremely likely that God exists. Defense of P1This is pretty self-explanatory. The three possible causes of the fine-tuning of the universe are that it has to be that way, that it doesn't have to be that way but just happens to be that way, or that a being designed it. Defense of P2 There is no reason why the universe has to be the way it is, so the cause cannot be physical necessityThe odds are also astronomically stacked against it being due to chance. In fact, Julian Huxley, an arch-defender of evolution, estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale, the ods against evolution happening by pure chance are 1 followed by 3 million zeros to one [3]. C1This is the logical conclusion following the first and second premises. Defense of P3(Same as the defense of the third premise for theother two arguments)C2This is the logical conclusion following the first conclusion and the third premise. I feel I have made three good arguments supporting my case. Thank you. Sources[1] Craig, William Lane. . http://www.metacafe.com...[2] 2007. Gottlieb, Paula. . http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 718.