God does not exist.

"Definition of Existence: to have real being whether material or spiritual"I looked at your source and was unable to find this definition on the Merriam-Webster website. When using sources, please do not change any words (especially when the source is a dictionary) as it could be mistaken for dishonesty. One of the definitions given by your source reads:Existence: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistenceexistence of other worlds>" [1]It seems to me that this definition fits the concept of God perfectly. God exists independently of human consciousness and needs no "measuring" as was proposed by Pro earlier in the debate."Numbers, are not exactly 'real.'"I myself lean towards an anti-realist view of mathematics, but the concept of abstract ideas existing independently of being able to "be observed, touched, or measured" remains. For example, where do objective truths come from? How about logic? Metaphysical truths (i.e. the past is real and wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, the external world exists, etc.)? And what about morality? None of these examples can be quantitatively measured, yet we are all perfectly rational in accepting them as real."Many religions show the fact that god created the universe. Since those religions were formed long ago, and people did not have much scientific knowledge, it is very possible that religion (or belief in god(s) is false."I find it difficult to believe Pro asserts this as a serious objection to the existence of God. Pro is correct in saying that the idea of God creating the universe is held by many religions. I am puzzled, however, by why Pro asserts that belief in God should be false due to the fact that religions were formed a long time ago. Not only does the conclusion not follow from the premises in this argument, but the genetic fallacy has been committed [2]. Showing how or why one comes to hold a belief does nothing in attempting to show that the belief itself is false, it merely shows the origination of one's belief. "The widely accepted theory for the origin and evolution of the universe is the Big Bang model, which states that the universe began as an incredibly hot, dense point roughly 13.7 billion years ago"I would like to thank Pro for providing me with further evidence that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning (I even got a source out of it- it must be my lucky day.) The Big Bang is widely accepted (and rightly so) and tells us that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. But where did this Big Bang come from? If 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing, and 13.7 billion years ago there was a universe (with space, time, matter, and everything else) what could it be that brought all of this into existence out of nothing? Pro affirms the second premise in the first argument I presented:i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.ii. The universe began to exist.iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.Now, what about the first premise? Pro has neither affirmed nor denied this premise. The premise can be summarized by the simple idea that out of nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness can not produce something, because nothing does not have any properties, otherwise it wouldn't be nothing! Since nothingness could not have caused the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, what did? Only something that exists eternally (otherwise it would need a cause and we might enter an infinite regress), timelessly (for time is finite as well), spacelessly (space, like time, came into being at the moment of the Big Bang), and is immensely powerful (it must take some sort of power to create a universe, after all.) So it seems to me that the premises of this argument are true, and therefore the conclusion holds sound.Let us then turn to the second argument:i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.iii. Therefore, God exists.From what I gathered, Pro agrees with premise 2 of the argument. It is premise 1 that Pro appears to take issue with:"Animals do not have religious beliefs. Yet, the have the morals not to kill each other."Pro has misunderstood the concept of objective morality. I have not asserted that one requires religious belief in order to be moral. That is not relevant to the argument. What I have stated is that without a God, or a moral law-giver, we have no basis for a set of objective moral values and duties. For example, raping a child is objectively wrong. By objectively wrong, I mean to say that it is wrong independent of whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong. But if this is true, where does this idea of wrong come from? How can something be objectively right or wrong if God does not exist? I invite Pro to answer this question in the following round. Unless Pro is able to provide some reason to think that objective moral values and duties can exist without God, both the premises, and thus the conclusion that God exists, holds sound.To the third argument I presented, Pro gave no objection:i. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.ii. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in in some possible world.iii. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.iv. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.v. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.vi. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. In order to take issue with the conclusion, Pro must put forward a premise that he/she denies and process to knock it down. Until then, this argument holds sound.To the fourth argument I presented (the evolutionary argument against naturalism) Pro stated that he/she is not a naturalist. This is good to hear, but I would just point out the contradiction in Pro's reasoning for affirming that only "measurable" objects exist, yet denying naturalism. Pro has taken this round to produce unnecessary definitions (at least one of which does not match what was found in Pro's cited source), bring irrelevant topics into the discussion (i.e. Hinduism), and has not succeeded in knocking down any of the arguments I presented. Until Pro can take down each of these arguments and proceed to put forth sound arguments against the existence of God, Pro has not shouldered the burden of proof and therefore lost the debate.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...