The existence of a god is a logical certainty

First, thanks to Yraelz for accepting. Now, onto the debate. I will just refute my opponent's qualms with my premises. His attack on Premise One: "My opponent states that logically everything must have a beginning. This conclusion is flawed as this would indeed prove that there is no beginning to everything. For example if we find that the universe must have a beginning then before the universe there was something else (perhaps nothing) which must have also had a beginning. And before that there must have been something else which must have had a beginning. Many people feel that nothing existed before the universe but if this was the case it would still have to have a beginning somewhere." He says that there could have been nothing before the Universe, and if so, t would have to have a beginning as well. This is false. The Universe could only begin if time begins, because without time, there is no beginning, no here, no then, no now, etc. So, we must conclude that the Universe began when time began, and that before time, there was literally nothing. If you made a time machine, you could not go back to before time began. This would not have to have a beginning, because it never was a reality. Effectively the Universe has existed forever, as before time, there was literally nothing, no space, no existence, no nothing (not meant as bad grammar, simply saying there wasn't a thing or concept) When time started, the Universe began, as time has to exist for the universe to exist, and the Universe is the culmination of all that exists. His attack on Premise Two: "Perhaps. If we are going to assume that an intelligent being must have caused the universe to exist though we might as well just assume that the universe was powerful enough to create itself." If the Universe created itself, than I win this debate, because that would entail that the Universe is a god. In a way, like a human body, where we are the little molecules in the many cells. The Universe would be a god. I never said the god(s) had to be intelligent, it simply must have been something beyond nature, or supernatural. The Universe creating itself trancends the laws of physics, making it supernatural (superserious wow [Bad REM joke, sorry]). His attack on Premise Five: "A being that was powerful enough to create itself. In other words this being created itself from nothing. First off this falls outside of time, thus it isn't logical. Secondly nothing still existed before this being which means nothing must have had a beginning. Third creating something from nothing denies the logical idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thus it is illogical. Finally I ask my opponent what kind of power he speaks of." Well, it is illogical because it trancends the laws of physics, therefore only a supernatural being could do this. Then he says that the nothing must have had a beginning, which as I showed, it doesn't. Third he says it breaks the laws of physics; so, that only means that it is supernatural. His attack on Premise Six: "Why can't the universe just create itself?" It can, but all that does is win me this debate, as I showed earlier. His attack on Premises 7-9: "Not necessarily, in all reality I may just be viewing a predestined thought process. Our brains are made up of a great deal of complex switches that determine how to react in all situations. In other words we are designed in effect in the likeness of a complex computer our thoughts, emotions, feelings etc are all products of many if-then statements. If I am driving and my car flips off the road then adrenaline is pumped throughout my body. If I see a good friend then I am happy. In all reality you and I may have no actual control over anything that is happening, this of course includes our thoughts. However this still means somewhere on some level I likely exist." That still means that either we exist, or even if we don't our thoughts do. Even under his scenario we exist in a way, and so do our thoughts. Although this is a fun metaphysical quandary, it does not seriously affect this debate. I might start a debate on it (maybe). His attack on Premise 11: "No definitely not. The idea that I exist does by no stretch of the imagination mean that the world does exist. In fact outside of my own existence (a proof that I will continue to consider throughout this debate as I do not believe it to be entirely sound) I cannot prove that anything else exists. Everything else could be for all I know entirely fake, a faulty perception of my mind, could be a reflection of something else. In fact now that I think about it, I could have possibly created my own existence which is within my mind and mandated how it flows. There is no definite way to prove that the universe exists." AS long as anything exists, the Universe exists. That is what the Universe is, everything that exists. If something exists, even if as a hallucination.