It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

For my final response, I will be copying what Pro has said and will be typing my response below his text with apostrophes. I believe I gave a very good description of possible worlds in round 2. A possible world is the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet nor a universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. A possible world is irrelevant to reality in instances like unicorns. Unicorns exist in a possible world, but not in the actual world. They are contingent. A non-contingent being (such as God) either exist in all possible worlds due to necessity or no possible worlds due to impossibility. ‘Pro is still continuing to say that a maximally great god in a possible world has to be in every possible world and our world. This is flawed and Pro is just ignoring the problem! A possible world is an exclusive idea, even if a non-contingent god is in a possible world, it doesn’t affect other possible worlds. Pro couldn’t get that basic concept.’ Being metaphysically necessary is one of the maximally excellent qualities. For it is better to be necessary than contingent. So when we defined God as a maximally great being, we have to believe his is a non-contingent being. ‘It doesn’t matter what a god is in a possible world. It doesn’t affect reality. I have explained this too many times.’ This was my favorite part of you last round (: For one a banana is not metaphysically necessary. I have shown that in the last round. Furthermore, you went on to make an argument for the theist! I defined God as maximally great. You defined your magic banana as maximally great. We are making an argument for the same exact thing! We are both arguing for a maximally great being, I just called mine God and you called yours a magic banana. This is almost exactly what Peter Atkins did in his debate against William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig said that God caused the universe and Peter Atkins said he thought it was a computer, a timeless, immaterial, all-powerful computer. All Peter Atkins did was replace "God" with the word "computer" and all you did was replace the word "God" with "magic banana." ‘I have shown that a banana can be metaphysically necessary. A god sounds less crazy than a magic banana even if they do the same things. I’m not sure how you took my banana example as an argument for the theist. I was demonstrating how my magic banana only is relevant to the one possible world that it’s in.’ This still does not have any bearing on my argument. I am arguing only for a maximally great being. Not a deity of any specific religion. ‘I don’t have anything to say for this.’ Of course it was. You said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While I already showed that this is false, extraordinary is a very subjective word. What might constitute as extraordinary evidence for me, may not constitute as extraordinary evidence for you. ‘Regardless of what you think of the adjective, you just tried to veer away from the argument and you never even tried to show any evidence. Your whole rebuttal was talking about an adjective that had nothing to do with the argument, that’s sad.’ I would strongly argue that I took none of what you said out of context. I disagree that the big bang is an explanation for how the universe started without a god being involved. The Big Bang theory only describes what happened at the big bang, and then describes the expansion of the universe after. The Big Bang theory does not describe what caused the big bang to occur. ‘The Big Bang is an explanation for there not needing to be a god. All I meant to show I that a god wasn’t required for the creation of our universe.’ [Pro’s] Conclusion: I do agree that most of the possible worlds are not reality (I say most because the actual world is a possible world.) God is a non-contingent, metaphysically necessary being. That means that if he exists in a possible world, he exists in all of them. HunterSego has not shown this to be false, nor has he shown that God does not exist in any possible world. He continued to try and parody the ontological argument, but only made an argument for the same being I was arguing for. The resolution has been affirmed. ‘Pro continues to even say that I have not proved his possible world argument to be false even though I have done it many times! I did parody your argument with the magic banana for an example of how it’s false and it also showed how silly your god concept is. My magic banana is just as likely as your idea of god.’ Throughout the debate, Pro kept avoiding that possible worlds are exclusive ideas that aren’t relevant to each other or to reality. Pro never showed how it is more probable that a god existed and based his argument on a fallacy. Still, I thank Stubs for debating me on this topic. This was a great, yet fun, challenge. Lastly, I thank the readers for taking their time to read through this long debate.