God almost certainly exists

I will start with an overview, and then I will demonstrate how, along all three arguments discussed in this round, I am conclusively winning. OverviewRight off the bat, I would like to address the clash of this debate. Throughout the round, Pro has made quasi-philosophical claims, while I have responded with both philosophy and science. In wake of the overwhelming doubt these have cast upon Pro's arguments, Pro has resorted to a line of argumentation that, more or less, has become, "Well, you cannot PROVE that God does not act this way/did not behave this way/etc. " If these are the lone lines of argument Pro has left to turn to, then it is clear that Pro has not met the burden of proof. We must also remember that Pro has the exclusive burden of proof of this round. Several times, Pro exhorts me to disprove that God had something to do with morals. It is clear that I cannot do that; rather, Pro has to prove that God alone is the only rational source of morals, the universe, etc. And this burden has not, and probably cannot, be met. Finally, I would like to, once again, attack Pro's source material. I understand this makes Pro uncomfortable, since these sources have no validity. The point of a source is to substantiate, not simply to restate, a claim. For instance, when I claim that particles can self-create, I cite a source which substantiates this claim via empirical evidence. However, citing a "philosopher" like William Lane Craig, a single-minded, incredibly biased, generally discredited scholar, to substantiate very nebulous philosophical claims, simply will not do. More work needs to be done here in order to have any modicum of credibility. Problem of EvilPro misunderstands my argument. While I cannot, of course, claim that there exist actions that are objectively "evil," there certainly are actions that are incredibly destructive and, on a large scale, abrogate the rights of others. The force of this argument comes from the fact that if God created the Universe in its entirety, he, then, is responsible for what happens within. If he makes all the groundrules that the Universe must play by, and he is completely benevolent, it is absolutely nonsensical that such actions would be tolerated, let alone created, by an all-good God. Pro's counter is that we cannot possibly know whether evil is actually evil in a wider context of God. Of course, this presupposes that God exists. But, more importantly, this counter has two implications: 1) If evil can be good, then how do we possibly make sense of objective morals, and 2) God is perfectly OK with using the universe as a means to an end, violating Pro's own categorical imperative. Finally, even if these arguments would, somehow, lack force, Pro cannot appeal to lack of knowledge as proof. This is not a proof in any sort, and Pro had to give conclusive proof. Did Creation Have a Creator? Pro should probably read his source material more carefully. Pro's second source from the above argument has the following statements:- "One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started? ' is that the Universe was self-creating. "- " Modern physics is perfectly happy with creatio ex nihilo meaning that things began as a zero-energy Universe, negative energy will become dark energy and positive energy will becomes matter, the sum equals zero. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our understanding. "- "In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence. With respect to the origin of the Universe, the quantum vacuum must have been the source of the laws of Nature and the properties that we observe today. How those laws and properties emerge is unknown at this time. " All of these statements, from Pro's own source material, substantiates the claim I have been making this entire debate: the Universe could have created itself. Pro responds to this overwhelming evidence by saying that the claim that God exists is philosophical, while my claims are scientific and lack force as a result. This response is clearly off-base; if science can, in fact, present a case for something being created from nothing, then such a claim is not philosophically invalid. Moreover, if science, which is empirical and testable, proclaims something opposite of philosophy, which is neither empirical nor testable, then we should clearly defer to what can be seen and what can be tested. Pro's only other remaining defense here has been that 1) There are many interpretations of quantum physics, and 2) The quantum vacuum is within space-time, and, as such, must have been created. To the first, Pro's own source material substantiates the more widely-accepted indeterminate interpretations, so I take that Pro is conceding this point. Even if the point was not conceded, all I have to do is cast substantial doubt upon the idea that God has created the universe. Multiple interpretations of physics does not preclude this doubt from being cast. Secondly, Pro's source material substantiates the claim I have made all round: the Universe was written on the quantum vacuum. Space-time started at the beginning of the Universe; thus, the quantum vacuum is, indeed, outside of it. Moreover, even if the quantum vacuum was within space-time, it would be unchanging and, by Pro's own logic, would not need to be created. Finally, I have argued that creation itself is anathema to an unchanging God. Pro responds by claiming that this is not a new attribute, but does not respond to the claim that such a decision clearly demonstrates a large change of mental calculus, which would be required to disrupt the status quo in such a profound way. Such a change of mindset would, indeed, be a change in God and, therefore, refutes the idea of an unchanging God. Creation being external does not betray this idea. Morality I have stated a genetic case for moral instinct, claiming, with evidence (which you can read from my earlier arguments), that natural selection and the anatomy of the brain explain basic human moral instince and experience. This account does not need God, and it explains the presence of basic human moral intuitions, though they may differ across cultures and times. Pro has repeatedly claimed that objective morality can somehow be proven because of a prima facie belief in the objectivity of morals. To do this, Pro has repeatedly claimed a nebulous distinction between moral experience and instinct. It is clear that experience and instinct are inextricably linked, if not the same thing. They are both an innate calculus upon which humans make their decisions. Pro expects that an experience of objectivity proves objectivity. This is not proof in any way, shape, or form; it is almost comical how flawed logically this is, which I have demonstrated all round. Simply because humans may feel one way does not mean that something exists. An example of this is a soul: many humans strongly feel that each and every being has a soul. However, this does not prove that a soul exists. With absense of any sound philosophical or scientific grounding, it is clear that Pro's claims fall flat. I have, in addition, provided a strong objection to objective morals: differences in moral standards across the globe. I honestly am not sure what Pro's response has been throughout the round. It appears that Pro is arguing that, even if there are disagreements in morals, but, somewhere, somehow, objective morals still exist. I would like to wonder how this could possibly be the case. If rational humans have arrived at wildly different moral standards, then such a conflict clearly precludes any objectivity beyond begging the question. Pro has done this by begging the question of a God; this is not proof, and I obviously cannot disprove this claim. However, it has no evidence, no grounding, and cannot be upheld. These different moral standards demonstrate that binding morals cannot exist in any meaningful way; the only possibility of this would be for different humans to have different binding moral codes, which clearly is anathema to a universal moral system and an omnibenevolent God. Human moral experiences and moral instincts vary to such a degree that Pro's claims cannot have any veracity. ConclusionPro has an incredibly high burden of proof to meet, and the bar has not been met. I have shown that the problem of evil casts doubt on an omnibenevolent God, that creation does not need a creator, and that objective morality cannot exist. Pro resorts to begging the question, circular reasoning, and, incredibly, attempting to shift the burden of proof to me, to disprove what cannot be proven or disproven. As a result, Pro has not shown that God "almost certainly" exists and, if my argumentation is found to have force, God probably does not exist, though, of course, that cannot be proven.