Resolved: God exists.

Thanks GM, for a timely response (much more timely than mine)I will now defend my arguments and refute GM's thought provoking objections. Kalam cosmological argumentPremise one: All that began to exist has a causeGM states that this is not a necessary truth. He states how it could be false, however it is well recognized that in our Universe, things do not just come into existence without cause. He goes further to state that since the creation of the Universe is a unique event, we don't know this statement to be empirically true. This is particuarly interesting, because something arrising from nothing violates scientific law. GM is stating that due to the uniqueness of a Universe-creation event, scientific law could possibly be undermined. Until GM shows us how these laws could be undermined, the only rational conclusion we can draw is that creation comes from a power that as the ability to undermine scientific laws, such as God. Why God is exempt from scientific law.Since we can conclude that the Universe could not have been created using known scientific laws (I.E. something cannot arrise from nothing), it is rational to accept God as the creator. But why does God have the ability to undermine Universial law? As the creator, he is exempt from such law. Here's an example to elaborate on what I'm saying. A. GM makes a video-game. B. In that video game, all characters must dance around with a lampshade on their head.C. Therefore, GM must dance around with a lampshade on his head.Anyone can see that the conclusion to this is false. Since GM is the creator of his video-game, and GM is an infinitely more complex "being" than his characters, laws that apply to them do not apply to him. The same can be said about God.Time cannot be infinite.GM contends that "and it seems self-evidently incoherent to propose that time had to have a cause". We can conclude that all in our Universe that began to exist, including time, has a cause. Time began to exist, because infinity is impossible. Heres an example to explain:Infinity-14,000=Infinity. This is puzzling, because mathematically it is impossible, yet at the same time it is possible by the definition of infinity! This is paradoxical, and since paradox cannot exist in scientific law time cannot have existed infinitely. An objection might be raised that God had to have existed infinitely. This is false, in a sense. While God is uncaused he has not existed for an infinite amount of time because time is finite. Before the Universe, God existed, but he did not exist in time.What caused God?Nothing caused God. If you refer to my argument, you see that it states "everything that began to exist has a cause". God did not begin to exist, he is, by definition, uncaused! Furthermore, even if we were to accept this objection and believe that God did begin to exist, it still does not invalidate the argument. That everything that began to exist had a cause is a law in our Universe. I have already shown with my video-game analogy that God is exempt from the scientific laws he created. Premise two: The Universe began to exist. GM contends that we do not know that the Universe began to exist. He then goes on a very interesting and in-depth analysis of how the big bang could perhaps just be a small event, in a large multiverse. This is a very interesting theory, however it does not invalidate the argument. Indeed, all this shows is that the Universe did begin to exist! And while we can agree that the multi-verse theory is extremely compelling, it does not show our Universe to be uncaused. Again, he asks, who created God? I've already cleared this up that God is uncaused. However, even if I conceded to this point, none of my statements would be invalidated! Indeed, the belief that our Universe was created through the intelligent design of a being is not undermined even if that being himself was created by an even greater being.Plantinga's modal argumentGM contends that we can replace anything with God in this argument. This is false, because not all things meet the qualifications to fit this argument. Let's take GM and the videogame analogy again. If what GM says is true, that anything can be replaced in this argument, than the following argument will stand (and it will not.)Say GM creates a video-game character named Kat. While she exists in the world of GM's video game , does she exist in the real world as well? Let's take a closer look.1. Its possible that Kat exists2. If its possible that Kat exists, then Kat exists in some possible world3. If Kat exists in some possible world, then Kat exists in every possible world4. If Kat exists in every possible world, then Kat exists in the actual world5. If Kat exists in the actual world, then Kat exists6. Therefore, Kat existsPremises 1 and 2 are logically valid, but once we reach 3 the entire argument falls apart. Why? Because Kat the video game character does not meet the requirements for this argument to be fufilled. The reason God does, is because by the commonly accepted definition, God is an all powerful being, and if he existed in one possible world, by virtue of being all powerful he would have to exist in our world. Indeed, since God is the super natural creator of our Universe, he has a unique set of attributes that allow this argument to stand. Things such as Kat and the IPU (blessed be it.) do not.Objective Morality GM asks us which religion contains the objective moral standard. However if you look at the definition of God we are debating, the religion that could be affiliated with him is not relevant. He gives a rather fascinating quote from Adolph Hitler showing how Hitler used God to promote his own despicable agenda. This is not proof that Objective Morality doesn't exist, rather it is only proof that people are willing to try and twist the Objective standard that does exist to their own benefit. In defence of Objective Morality, I would ask GM to show me a religion or code of ethics that does not condemn murder. He has not disputed that Objective Morality cannot exist without God, and thus I extend this premsie. He tries to show that Objective Morality does not exist by showing how people like Hitler do evil things in the name of God. This proves nothing, because we all do immoral things at one time or another. The fact that such actions like the Holocaust happened does not prove Objective Morality is false rather it shows how far one can stray from our Objective standard. I greatly look forward to GM's next reply, and urge a Pro vote.