God exists

Kalam Cosmological Argument:Firstly, He said that he did not understand how he misunderstood the first premise and my reasoning was unclear but if it wasn't already said clearly I repeat again that he was refuting the beginning of the universe not the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause so simply put, Con argued against premise 2 and not premise 1 so my first premise remains entirely valid and reliable. Then he says I simply appealed to authority in argument against a possible actual infinity of things. I did quote David Hilbert for reinforcement but he hasn't done anything to refute why the second law of thermodynamics prevents the actual infinity of things existing and the metaphysical absurdity of that proposal. Con then goes on to explain his multiverse argument where he attempts to give a reason for us to believe in this theory. He just refers to saying that the multiverse is a more reliable explanation than God because your already multiplying something you have rather than creating a new entity of God but God is a timeless, transcendent reality and the multiverse theory is a pretty new and odd theory as itself. So he simply appeals to his own personal opinion of how he thinks one is a weirder idea than the other and a misunderstanding of the nature of how God is a timeless being. His multiverse theory is still a weak attempt devout of evidence to refute both my Kalam and fine tuning argument. The Kalam Cosmological argument was something I argued that could entail a monotheistic God. But nevertheless, the Kalam Cosmological argument is simply put "a general argument for the existence of God" so my Kalam argument even if it maybe entails a different type of God supports the culmutaive case for God. Moral Values Argument:First of all Con quotes my added definition of what objective moral values are and claims that this is my argument and its insufficient. That was simply a clarification of a definition and not my argument so his remarks on how that affected my actual argument are futile. Then he claims that I accused him of not personally believing in objective moral values but I never said that. In round 2 when Con gave his objection to my second premise of my moral argument if you read carefully he said that I only proposed a question only and that my support for the second premise (that objective moral values exist) is insufficient. I simply gave a response to why there is reason that objective moral values exist. The fact of the matter is that objective moral values reside within people. If you affirm objective moral values then my moral argument for God is successful but if you don't believe in objective moral values then my argument is meaningless. But the truth is that we all know that even if kids were raised being taught about the greatness and goodness of the Holocaust that despite the different society that the Holocaust is still absolutely bad in all society's. If you affirm that then my moral argument is very strong and you have many times justified that you don't disregard objective moral values existence and you claimed yourself that many atheist affirm objective moral values themselves. Fine Tuning Argument:He again brings up his multiverse objection to my fine tuning argument and if you look back to my reasons why this multiverse objection of his logically weak then scroll back to where I explain that. And even if his multiverse objection is true it is completely in vain because then there is a permutation or universe where there is a God who fine tuned the universe for life so we go logically full circle back to the proposition that God Exists. Conclusion:My arguments for God are strong and Con passes over many of my points. My arguments have mounted up to where belief in God is more logical and reasonable than the atheistic worldview and God provides the reasons for many things in our universe. I hope you all come to see this and remember the holes of his logic and objections and that God gives you ultimate meaning and purpose and value in life and that reason is not an enemy to God but only ends up strengthening the position further. Thank you for the debate Con. It was very enjoyable and I respect your respectful manner of your arguments and appreciate your time and effort.