The Judeo/Christian god most likely exists

I will be arguing that the Judeo/Christian God likely exists. As Con has not said otherwise, I am assuming that the BoP is shared. As Con has requested that the first round be for opening arguments only, I will attempt to focus on evidences that Con has not yet addressed, and save my rebuttals for the later rounds. My opening arguments are as follows:1. The Cosmological ArgumentThings do not create themselves. This statement is self-evident. We have never seen a single example in nature of something that is capable of being its own creator, and the entire foundation of science is built on an attempt to explain cause and effect. The Big Bang theory, and the overwhelming body of evidence supporting it (the discoveries of background radiation left over from the singularity, or the red-shift in distant galaxies implying expansion, for instance) supports the conclusion that the universe began to exist at a point in finite time. If this is the case, the universe was caused by something outside of itself. Additionally, whatever created a universe comprised of space, time, and matter, must, by necessity, be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial—after all, if a being of matter creates matter, the question is raised of what created the matter the being itself is comprised of. God is described as having these three attributes—he is beyond space, time, and matter, as well as being powerful enough to create something as vast and complex as our universe. This is not evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God specifically, but it is the first piece of the puzzle. 2. The Moral ArgumentSince the dawn of human civilization, there has been an ever-present belief in the existence of objective moral values. It is worth noting that even Con appears to hold this belief, given that they have seen fit in their opening arguments to accuse God of immorality—a crime that cannot exist without objective moral values (I will address this argument further in my rebuttals). We, as a species, are seized by the need to establish an order that promotes the counter-intuitive ideas of selflessness and compassion, and puts the the needs of others above our own, even and especially at the cost of our own comfort and survival. Evolution cannot rationally account for this. The continued survival of the sick, weak, and disabled, for instance, damages the entire species; according to natural selection, the best course of action is to allow them to die out so as to prevent them from passing on inferior genetic material. Humanity, however, actively campaigns for better care for these individuals out of a sense of moral obligation. This does not make sense from an atheistic perspective. From the Christian perspective, however, Romans 2:14-15 states that the law of the Lord is written on the hearts of all mankind, so that even those without God are capable of knowing and following it.3. The Resurrection of JesusThere are two schools of thought among skeptics regarding Jesus.Position one: Jesus did not exist at all.This is almost unanimously denied by modern scholarship, and for good reason. Cornelius Tacitus, in Annals XV, writes: “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” This lines up exactly with the circumstances stated in the Gospel accounts. Furthermore, the Babylonian Talmud states: “on the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged [a Jewish idiom for crucifixion]. Forty days before the execution, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” This affirms Jesus' crucifixion on Passover eve (as well as, interestingly enough, his miraculous powers). These are only two references, but more can be found in the works of Celcus, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Flavius Josephus, and Lucian, among others. The Gospel accounts themselves cannot be ignored, either. They were circulated within living memory of the events they describe (even liberal scholarship dates their authorship less than a century after the fact [1]), and they pass the examinations of textual criticism, containing (for instance) ideas that were contrary to the cultural beliefs of the time, and thus unlikely to be have been fabricated as a product of culture. They also don't shy away from mentioning people (even powerful people) by name, as well as containing embarrassing details about their authors/sources (e.g., the disciples abandoning Jesus upon his arrest, Peter's famous denial of Jesus, or Jesus' own family not believing that he was the Christ), raising the question why they would not choose to omit these elements if the accounts were fake.Position two: Jesus did exist, but he didn't rise from the dead.This is where it gets interesting. This position has a number of problems, not the least of which being how Christianity could have possibly spread at all if there had been a body in the tomb. The Jews were hostile to the very idea of Jesus, and had they wanted to crush belief in him once and for all, they needed only to present Christ's body to remove all doubt of his mortality. They were clearly unable to do so. Additionally, the apostles were utterly convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead—a position affirmed even by Bart Ehrman, a respected NT scholar who is self-described as “an agnostic leaning towards atheism.” Given the way the Gospels describe the apostles' reaction to Jesus' death (confusion, fear, and grief), they believed wholeheartedly that he had, in fact, died. It would have taken a hugely significant event to convince them that he was, in fact, alive. The Gospels even make mention of Thomas adamantly stating that he would not believe unless he was able to physically put his hands in the nail wounds—the apostles clearly understood biology well enough to know that people do not naturally come back from the dead, so why did they make this claim in the case of Jesus? There is also a creed in 1 Corinthians 15, stating “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” Scholarship puts this creed as being in circulation within 1-3 years (!) after Christ's crucifixion—too early for legends to have sprung up [2] (a position also agreed upon by Ehrman, as well as people such as James Crossley and Michael Goulder, both atheists).I look forward to Con's rebuttals, and request that they keep it a bit more civil than they have up to this point. Mocking an opposing viewpoint does not disprove it.Sources:[1] http://www.freebeginning.com...[2] https://carm.org...