Existance of God

Contention 1: The Kalam cosmological argument.P1. Everything that begins to exist, also has a cause.P2. The Universe began to exist.C: Therefore, the Universe had a cause. P1: The premise expresses the rather obvious truth that someting can not come from nothing. It would be rather absurd to deny this since it isn't really logical to say that something that is material can come from absolute nothingness. To deny this then one would have the burden of proof as to how this could possibly happen. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting it. So, that means there is a cause for everything.P2: All known scientific evidence supports this premise. Ever since Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is exspanding in 1929. All scientists agree that the Universe in finite and was caused 14 billion years as a result of ' The Big Bang' (which had a cause) [1].Now with this made clear then we must ask ourselves one question: Why say that a god was the cause?Well it must be noted that there is nothing before the cause of the universe. So that means it wont be able to be explained scientifically because there was nothing before then. There was no time, no matter, no anything. Therefore, the cause must not be before time itself and must be the cause of time. And in order for the whole of the universe to be created from nothing the cause has to be all-powerful. There is no other logical way to explain the origin of the universe is that a god did it.Contention 2: The Design ArgumentThis next argument is based of you guessed it: The perfection of the design of well...everything. Consider this syllogism:P1: The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibilityP2: Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.P3: It wasn't chance.P4: Therefore, the universe is the product of intelligent design.P5: Intelligent design comes only from a mind or a intelligent designer.C: Therefore, the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. P1: Obviously my first premise is easy to prove all my opponnent has and the voters has to do is either look at the sky or even look at themselves in the mirror and they will see how complex everything is. P2: If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened." Things just fell out that way "by chance." Alternatively, if all this order is not the product of blind, purposeless forces, then it has resulted from some kind of purpose. That purpose can only be intelligent design. So my second premise stands.P3: It is up to my opponent to give a credible alternative to intelligent design. And "chance" simply is not a credible cause. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected it to turn out, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected it to be. But expectation is truly impossible without order. If you take away order and speak only of chance as a kind of ultimate source of everything, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of the word chance at all. Instead of thinking of the word chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate order-against a random, purposeless background of chance. That is incredible. Therefore, it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, 'not chance', and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design. ~~Sources~~ [1] http://skyserver.sdss.org...