God exists.

I am an antitheist, but I would like to try to argue the other side to improve my own skills. ArgumentsI disagree right off the bat that God should be defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. If this was true, Gods' attributes are mutually contradictory. If God knows his own future decisions, he doesn't have free will, since the future was already set. If he can't change his decisions, he isn't omnipotent, if he doesn't know the future, he isn't omniscient. God himself can't limit his own powers, for example, in the Simpsons, he can't microwave a burrito so hot he can't eat it. Also under most theology, humans have free will, so God can't be omniscient. Also if humans can resist God's will, he isn't omnipotent. Plenty of Christians don't believe in the concept. Islam doesn't teach that Allah is all good, he is merely all just. Buddhism doesn't have a God most of the time. Hinduism has loads of Gods, but none are like that. At present, most people's view of God is different than that of the typical Christian view. And this is ignoring all of the other pre christian religions. First off, I'll borrow William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. To begin, everything that begins to exists must have at least one cause. Due to Big Bang cosmology, we know the universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had at least one prior cause for its existence. The universe can't have existed infinitely in the past, due to the impossibility of an actual infinite. If actual infinities did exist, we could have ridiculous things such as Hilbert's Hotel, which has an infinite number of rooms and can accommodate an infinite number of guests an infinite number of times. Second, the Leibniz Cosmological Argument. According to the principle of sufficient reason, everything that exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence. Not to be captain obvious, but the universe exists. By extension, it must have an explanation for its existence. God serves as the only explanation for the existence of the universe, therefore God must exist.Third, the Teleological Argument, more well known as the Argument from Design, or Paley's Watchmaker Argument. If one comes across watch in the middle of a beach, one won't say that it just came to be, or it came along by chance. It would be absurd to say so. The only logical option is that a watchmaker designed it. When the analogy extends to the universe, one must conclude that there must be a divine artificer, a heavenly watchmaker. Similar arguments have been made about the Fine Tuning of the universe. If one of the fundamental constants such as the strong force, weak force, gravitational force, the force of electromagnetism, Plank's constant, speed of light, etc. In total there are approximately 26 or so of them. But if one changed a single constant by a hair's length, life itself wouldn't exist. The line of reasoning is similar, saying that design is much more likely than chance. Some have proposed a hypothetical multiverse, due to quirks in cosmology, particle physics, and string theory. But at the moment, this can't be used as an explanation, since it's completely unknown if they exist or not. Their very existence may contradict Carl Popper's principle of falsifiability in science since we are stuck in our universe. This is also a potential problem due to the inverse gambler's fallacy, where if someone gets a royal flush in poker 5 times in a row, which has a 3.3554432*10^-13 chance of occurring, they can just say that they are in the universe where they get 5 royal flushes in a row. Others have proposed that other forms of life could exist elsewhere. I wish to see their evidence for this. The Drake equation is very unclear in this manner, under the presumption that it is correct. Others have countered with the argument from poor design. Perhaps God isn't omnibenevolent, omnipotent or omniscient, but this wouldn't disprove his existence. From the Leibniz and Kalam Cosmological arguments, we know there must by some prior cause for the universe's existence that is the reason for its existence. It can't, of course, be an unconscious cause, since unconscious causes can't move towards a goal. If I may quote Aquinas, "as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer," nature achieves the goals of a designer. From the teleological arguments, we, of course, know there must be an explanation for design and this fine tuning. From all of this, we know there is a designer, and this designer must be God.Anticipated ObjectionsImmediately, when thinking of objections and counter arguments for Theism, one thinks of Epicurus' Problem of Evil. Whether it be the logical or evidential problem, they address the same points. Is God all powerful? Is God all good? Is God all knowing? These aren't the question of this debate, it could very well be for another debate, but it is irrelevant to this debate. And there are several theodicies proposed by many different theologians. Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds. Perhaps God wanted us to have free will, so he allows evil. Perhaps as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God. Or maybe evil is an illusion.Second would be the argument from poor design. This covers only the goodness, power or knowledge of God. It doesn't mention his existence. This is again, a non-sequitur to this debate. The third objection would more likely than not be that of Occam's Razor, and I would be surprised if my opponent didn't mention it. It is what his profile name is. Occam's Razor is the principle to not multiply entities beyond necessity. What proof does my opponent have that God isn't a necessary explanation? This line of argument can also lead to a reductionist view, thinking that some things don't exist when they in fact do.Fourth would be the argument from inconsistent revelation. This is still a non-sequitur to this debate on God's existence. He could have been crucified and been dead for a weekend just for fun, and be up around to start Islam. A couple centuries later he starts Scientology, Mormonism, and some cargo cults. But regardless, this is irrelevant to if he exists. He could also just be a deist god, and not interfere with human affairs.