God exists

Rebuttals: "My adversary seems to be confused as to what I was actually pointing out. If he says infinity is just a concept in your mind, and not something that is actually possible, then God logically cannot be eternal. " Again, my opponent has taken what I said about infinity out of context. As one can clearly see above, when referring to infinity not existing, it was in context of the confines of the physical universe we live in. An uncaused, transcendent creator would not fall under that category. With this in mind, Con's argument is not relevant to our discussion. Con asks how do I know that God exists outside of our universe? I know this because, as Con admits, our universe hasn't always existed. Therefore, any cause of the universe must not be part of the universe. As for Con's "simultaneous causation" argument, my opponent asserts that non-existent atoms can cause other non-existent atoms. But this is not how atoms act. I challenge Con to give us one example of this happening in nature. Point us to the empirical evidence. Without this, I am sure Con will understand if we reject such unsubstantiated, unscientific claims. Now concerning the existence of moral truths existing, I would simply point to Con's own words: "Evil exists". If Con truly believed that morality is subjective, Con couldn't claim any action was "evil". All Con could say is that he/she doesn't prefer a certain action. So, in reality, Con has implicitly admitted moral truths exist. Now, as for Con substituting "evil" with "suffering", this still doesn't provide a hurdle for the existence of God. My opponent claims that the existence of suffering is somehow inferior to a scenario without suffering, but offers no evidence to support such a claim. For example, if by losing $5, I am able to receive $100, that would be better than never losing the $5. Maybe suffering isn't bad. How does Con know that suffering is bad? Is Con omniscient? "I was saying we don't have a need for a God in order to explain how our universe works; how it came into existence. It'd be like saying we don't have a need for a Y in order to explain X. " Again, that doesn't give us any reason to believe God doesn't exist. Just because I don't need something or someone, it doesn't follow that they don't exist. As I have shown in the previous round, Con's third argument is self-refuting. Closing remarks: I want everyone to notice that at this point of our debate, Con has not even attempted to refute my first contention: There are no good reasons to believe atheism is true. I think this is very telling. Con has at least attempted to refute my other contentions. In any debate, unchallenged contentions are presumed true. So, as of now, we must presume that there are no good reasons to believe atheism is true. And if that's the case, then God must exist, because if God didn't exist, then that would be a good reason to believe atheism is true. As for my other contentions, Con has shown a tendency to take my arguments out of context, and to implicitly agree with my contentions. As for Con's contentions, we have seen them to be irrelevant and self-refuting. Con seems to be a nice person, but not the best debater. When you consider all that, and add the fact that Con violated the rules of the debate by offering rebuttals in round two, I think the winner of this debate is rather clear.