Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

I just realized I only have 6 hours left, and I am sitting up at 3 am now writing this. Hai hai hai...in any case, I thank Double_R for this match, and for the readers for reading. I do remind the readers that Double_R graciously agreed to skip a round. I thank him most sincerely for that. Now with that let us move onto the debate arguments. While I always like the rhetoric, it works less on written debates. While my opponent certainly gives a rather spectacular rant the truth is he himself admitted that his own analogy was working against him above. I see from a quick look that he has dropped that analogy. I need to clear one thing though. Let us say you have a mustache and a beard, and you can only shave one off. Lets say they both look equally sexy, but you have to trim your mustache every other day, while you can trim your beard once a week and no one will really notice. Lets say you chose the cut off that which took more work to maintain: the mustache. Would you have used the razor on the beard or on the mustache? Would the razor has applied on the mustache or the razor? To say that Occam's Razor applies to God is not that God cannot be a viable subject of the razor, it means that the razor would chose to cut off God. That the razor would make God redundant. This is what my opponent's arguments should entail, as long as they do not, I win this here and now. So while the razor could have been used on the beard, it applied itself only on the mustache. The reason I reiterated the definition was because Double_R had also done so. I felt it necessary to once more show the readers what Occam's Razor entails. My opponent in his speech failed to contend how within his analogy Occam's Razor would apply if lets say I said an alien did this. My opponent never engaged this. He makes a new analogy, a roller skates one. Firstly he only now decides to contend the definition in itself, more importantly however he states that Occam's Razor applies to everything. 'Tis I believe is sufficiently explained above and needs no more reiteration. As for the ball I already showed to you how Occam's Razor does not apply, by the very fact that even though it has some assumptions but my opponent takes it to be correct we know that the Razor has not cut the thought off. My opponent is at once arguing against himself. Exactly we can believe that this crazy man placed the ball, for Occam's Razor would not apply. Because even thought there will be some assumptions these assumptions would not be purely speculative. My opponent has somewhat conceded. The next point of my opponent would only make sense if he can prove that the belief in no God uses fewer postulates than the belief in a God. This is not entirely impossible, but he never did anything like this. He never gave any argument against a generic super natural being, and he never showed why this particular proof uses fewer postulates. Double_R admits it is his duty to show that all proofs of God are speculative, read the second round again oh dear readers, and tell me if you truly feel he has shown that all proofs of God are speculative, this he has not shown. Since my opponent has not fulfilled his burden this resolution then collapses. I remind my opponent he must pass the last round. Faithfully Yours, Ajab