God does not exist.

Ave!Contingency ArgumentPro's paradoy is meant to show that somebody else could have made the jam sanwhich. In the same way, something else except god could have made the universe. P2 of his argument causes the paradoy to fail, because it's not an accurate parallel to the contingency argument. In the case of a jam sanwhich, it is easy to think of other people who have jam, so it doesn't nessecarily follow that you made the sandwhich. But god would be the only being with maximal greatness, omnipotence, spacelessness, timelessness, etc. Using Occam's razor, there is simply no reason to think of other beings like god that could have caused the universe. Since god alone is satisfactory to explain the beginning of the universe, we should not consider the existence of other beings that could have caused it as well.Pro asks why the Big Bang doesn't explain the origins of the universe. The Big Bang doesn't explain the origins of the universe because it only tells us about a singularity and what happened to it. I'll quote from Wikipedia's article on the Big Bang.'There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.'From this, the Big Bang theory provides us a poor explanation of why the universe exists.The great power and energy required to cause such an event would heavily imply omnipotence.Moral ArgumentPro is very selective in the parts of the argument he answers. He quotes some of it, and then talks about how moral conflict shows moral truth does not exist. I've already answered this objection, and I've shown that it actually supports the argument for objective morality that I made. Remember what I said in the last round:'King also argues that there is moral conflict over issues. Group X views A as moral, and Group Y views A as immoral, so the first premise must be false on his view. Like I pointed out in the last debate, all this observation does is support the premise.'Yes, a person could consider an action done to another person to be moral, and another person could consider it to be immoral. The premise of the argument simply states that the action has moral content. In other words, it can be thought of as being moral or immoral, and not amoral. When Pro argues that people can think of that actions morality in different ways, all he does is affirm the premise to be true, not refute it. Far from being a rebuttal of the first premise, Pro has unknowingly supported it.''Pro just ignores this part of my argument and re-states his objections as if they had gone unanswered!Pro's other argument is easily answered. There was no time when God hadn't commanded it. That simply explanation completely destroys his argument against divine command theory.Ontological ArgumentThere was a time in evolutionary history when dogs didn't exist. The maximally great being would exist out of necessity. If something didn't always exist, it does not exist out of necessity. From this, a dog cannot be maximally great.Attribute ArgumentPro drops this argument from his case.Argument from QuantityPro drops this argument from his case.ConclusionPro presented two arguments against the existence of god, and dropped them all in this round. Because of this, he has failed to meet his burden of proof, and a vote for Con should be clear.Vale!