The Biblical God exist and is Morally justified!

Contention I : God's Existence-" This is again asserting that believers that experience God have distinct mental disorders. I am quite sure a perfectly sane person is able to discern the difference between random noises and/or talking to themselves from the difference of the God they experience.My opponent has not provided one link between mental disorders and revelations of God. So why should we accept such theories?" My opponent is straw manning my stance and shifting the burden of proof. I said we are all mentally unstable in some way, none of us have perfect mental heath. I wasn't saying that all believers in God have some specific medical condition, this is absurd. Regardless, Pro is acting like the burden is on me to show how God is a delusion. However, the burden is on my opponent to show that God does in fact exist. A. Pro is begging the question here, why must the universe even have a cause at all? I do not see why it must, and Pro has not demonstrated this.B. Striving towards something doesn't mean it exists. For example. there are different levels of fighting skills but that doesn't mean a Super Saiyan exists because they all strive to be the most maximal fighter. So, just because there are different levels of good that doesn't mean some perfect good exists.C. There is no reason to think that order automatically equates to intelligence. Just because intelligence can produce order, that doesn't mean all order comes from intelligence. I mean, a Chinese man can build a computer, that doesn't mean all computers are build by Chinese people. So, just because intelligence can produce order, that doesn't mean all order is created by intelligence. It definitely does not appear that way. D. There is no evidence these people experienced anything supernatural, thus these experiences can be dismissed as evidence for God.Contention II : God is Just-My opponent is committing the bare assertion fallacy again. Also, he is shifting the burden of proof by asking me "why he is not?". Regardless, I already explained that if eternal hell fire exists that God cannot be just. Conention III: God's morality-If God's nature is the way it is because it is good, then this means there is an independent standard of good. Thus, God could not be the source of good. If God's nature is good simply because whatever God's nature is, is necessarily good, then if God's nature was that of a murderer or rapist these attributes would be necessarily good, because whatever was God's nature would be necessarily good.The theist could claim that God's nature could not be that of a murderer of rapist, because since by necessity, God's nature must be good. However, without an independent standard of good, any attributes possible could be applied to God's nature, and they would be good necessarily when we know some acts if objective, are evil.Therefore, there must be some independent source of good besides God and his nature ontologically.Contention IV: Man's Justification-This is nothing more than a bare assertion on my opponents behalf. He keeps explaining what he believes the situation is, but he doesn't explain why anybody should believe him. Points Contending Against=Contention I: Spiritual Decay-This is shifting the burden again, I don't have to show that spirits do not exist. The burden is on my opponent, and he gave no reason to think spirits exist, this idea has just been asserted like all of his other arguments .Contention II: Moral Decay-My opponent says that as generations come and go we are getting less moral. However, people are more moral now than they were in the days of the Old Testament, and I bet more people do not believe in God now more than ever. There is simply no way to tie this into God's actual existence anyway.Contention III: Physical Decay- This has nothing to do with God. If God exists or he doesn't, how would that change any "physical decay?". Contention IV: Lack of knowledge- Pro claims we will probably never know what caused the origin of life. If this is true, we could never know if God did it or not. Thus, my opponent shot himself in the foot if he is trying to show that God did it. Also, I bet we will find out. Science isn't even close to reaching it's limitations. Rebuttals I never said God had to do everything for us, I just said he cannot be moral if he has the power to stop evil and doesn't. I also debunked Pro's claim that people can immediately experience God if they want, by mentioning that many people have wanted this but it doesn't come, it only comes to those who trick themselves into believing it's true.My opponent should show reason why God should help a starving girl in Africa when her fellow humans are the ones allowing her to starve. God is the one allowing her to starve if he exists, by not doing anything to help her. Thus, God cannot be all good, because an all good God would help her. However, God is defined as all good, so God probably does not exist. Conclusion My opponent failed to meet has burden, and I tore down all his arguments with ease.