God's Existence is More Plausible Than His Non-Existence.

I wish to thank Con for taking the time to debate this topic with me. There are many great arguments for God's existence, but due to limited space I will limit myself to three arguments. In order to win the debate, Con must refute my arguments and present a case that it is more likely that God doesn't exist than that he does. My case will not specifically be for the Christian God, just for a God in general, as defined in the first round.Argument One: The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentThe argument is as follows:P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C: Therefore, the universe had a cause. [1]Premise 1 -- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.This is pretty self-explanatory, and pretty uncontroversial. The principle of causality is a first principle. In other words, it is self-evident. According to this fundamental principle, every effect has a cause and as such, non-being cannot produce being.Premise 2 -- The universe began to exist.The Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, cannot be eternal. We also see that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. As we see the universe is expanding more and more rapidly, and the universe is running out of usable energy, the universe will inevitably run out of usable energy and result in a "heat death." As the universe is expanding and not static, we can see that the universe, indeed, had a beginning as it is not eternal.We can also approach this from a philosophical viewpoint:1) If an infinite number of moments occurred before today, then today would never have come, wince it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments.2) But today has come.3) Hence, there was a finite number of moments before today; the universe had a beginning. [2]Conclusion -- Therefore, the universe had a beginning.This shows the argument valid (as the conclusion follows from the premises), and that it is a sound argument. It can be scientifically and philosophically shown that the universe had a beginning, and therefore had a cause.Argument Two: The Ontological ArgumentThis argument is as follows:P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [3]This is a logically air-tight argument, and an uncontroversial one. Each premise logically leads to the conclusion, following modal logic. The only way to defeat this argument is to show that the concept of God is incoherent.There are three types of entities to distinguish: First, are impossible entities. These are entities that exist in no possible world, because they are logically incoherent. For example, square circles. Second, there are contingent entities. These are entities that exist in some possible worlds, but not others. It is possible that they could not exist. Humans are contingent entities. Third, are necessary entities. These are entities that must exist by their own nature, and must exist in every possible world. Numbers are necessary entities.God is a necessary entity, and as shown in the Ontological Argument, as long as it is possible that God exists, then he exists in the actual world (which is the world we live in now).Argument Three: Thomistic Cosmological ArgumentThe third argument is as follows:P1: Things do move. Motion is the most obvious form of change.P2: Change is a passing from potence to act (i.e. from potentiality to actuality).P3: Nothing passes from potency to act except by something that is in actuality, for it is impossible for a potentiality to actualize itself.P4: There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers or movers. If there is no First Mover, there can be no subsequent motion, since all subsequent motion depends on prior movers for its motion.C1: Therefore, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, a pure actualizer with no potentiality in it that is unactualized.C2: Everyone understands this to be God. [4]A quick note about actuality and potentiality.Consider a red rubber ball. There are some qualities it has actually, such as redness, roundness, bounciness, etc. That red rubber ball also has potentialities (e.g. it can become blue if you paint it, it can become soft and gooey if you melt it, etc.). The red rubber ball can't actualize its potentials unless acted upon by an outside force.For Aquinas, movement was a change from potentiality to actuality. Nothing can actualize its potential unless acted upon by an outside force. So nothing in the universe could not be moving unless there was a First Cause (not temporally first, necessarily, but first in the chain of causes), an Unmoved Mover who has no potentialities, but is all actuality.I hope these arguments will prove illuminating. I look forward to Con's response.[1] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, 74.[2] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 399.[3] Craig, William Lane, "The Ontological Argument," in To Everyone An Answer, Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland ed., (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 2004), p. 128.[4] Geisler, p. 162.[5] Feser, Edward, Aquinas: Beginner's Edition, Oneworld Publications, 2009, p. 10.