It is probable that God exists

Thank you for your response and for this debate. Absolute Causality and Causes of The Big BangCon said that the evidence suggests several other equally if not more probable causes of the Big Bang. Firstly, Con has presented no evidences or reasons for these other causes being more probable. None whatsoever. He merely claims it. I didn't find any evidences presented in his two rounds of argumentation. Thus, I have very little to work with here. Indeed, Con can present some reasons or evidences for these causes but Con should have done this in his third or second round so I could have a chance to respond to them. As this is my final round, I am not able to respond to whatever 'evidences' Con gives. This would not be fair. Con had two opportunities to justify his claim, He did not. Secondly, Even if granted this doesn't disprove the existence of God. In terms of absolute causality claiming that the big bang was caused by x y or z arises the question what caused those. Indeed, There has to exist an uncaused being which caused all other causes because as I said in my second round, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, Then there wouldn't’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. Thus, We have to posit an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, In other words an indefinite chain of causes. Con agrees that the cause must be sufficiently powerful enough to cause it. I said that the cause must also be personal because a impersonal cause cannot give rise to a temporal effect. Con did not respond to this. Again, Con may choose to respond to it now in his final round, But this should be done in his previous round. To respond to it in his final round is unfair as I have no chance to respond back. I said that the cause must be personal in my previous round, If Con had an objection against that then he should have objected in that very same round aka the third round. Con has not. Occam RazorCon argued that God has more conditions than other hypotheses explaining the Big Bang. Therefore, It is less likely that God exists compared to these other hypotheses. Again, Con has not even presented these other hypotheses and have given no reasons as to why we should believe they are more probable to be the cause of the universe, Therefore Con has given me nothing to work with. Once again, It would be unfair and not right if Con did present those hypotheses in his final round. He should have done this in his previous two rounds when he had the chance so I could give my objections to it. Not in the final round when I cannot even respond to it in the first place. Moreover, It does not follow that it is less likely that God exists just because God has more conditions than other hypotheses explaining the Big Bang. It may very well be the case that God has more conditions than other hypotheses but still the cause of the universe. Indeed, I would argue that God is most sensible explanation for the cause of the universe as I have shown in my second round. Other PointsCon said: it presupposes that matter, Time, And space did not exist before the Big Bang because scientific instruments can not observe them. A: It is very unlikely that they existed before the big bang. Even if they did, That arises the question what caused them in the first place. As I have shown, No matter how many causes came prior to the big bang, There has to be an uncaused causer which caused all other causes. This cause must also be personal, Transcend matter, Time and space because it caused them into existence. And it has to be extremely powerful as Con has agreed with. This sounds very much like God to me. Furthermore, This does not disprove the existence of God. Even if Con is able to show that something else than God caused the universe, He still has to face the problem of what caused that. Ultimately, He has to agree that an uncaused causer exists given the absurdity of an infinite regress. Con did not respond to this when he had the chance. Con had two rounds to respond to this and did not. It is absurd to ignore this till your last round when I cannot even respond. It follows that Con's objections therefore, Given the fact that he had two rounds of opportunities to object, Should be dismissed if given by Con. Con said: Why say that an uncaused causer caused the caused when you can say the caused is uncaused? Or, More simply, Why not state that the existence of physical causes and processes did not begin. A: The uncaused did cause the caused but the caused itself obviously cannot be uncaused. I did not say that the caused is uncaused, This is a straw man attack. Why not state that the existence of physical causes and processes did not begin? Because we know that they did begin without a single shadow of doubt. Con said: Just because events and things in the universe appear caused, Does not entail that the whole universe was. A: The argument is that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. We know that the universe began to exist, Therefore it must have cause. This is true for anything with a beginning. SummaryCon doesn't seem to dispute the fact that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have a cause. As I said in my third round, Con has mostly argued that there are other possibilities for the cause of the universe. However Con doesn't give any valid reasons for these other hypothetical possibilities being the cause of the universe. Con continued not giving any reasons or evidences for his proposition. Con has not even presented these hypotheses and nor has he given any evidences or reasons for us to judge if they are justified or true. Again, It is very unfair if Con did this in his final round because I would have no chance to respond to it. Con had two rounds to support his claim and did not do so at all. The voters should note this. The resolution has been affirmed. I urge the readers to vote accordingly.