God's Existence is More Plausible Than His Non-Existence.

Once again, I thank Con for taking up this challenge. I will just respond to a few of his points from last round before I end.I have already explained that the definition of Omnipotent I am using is "almighty in power." Con cannot change the definition of Omnipotent, otherwise he is attacking a strawman. The definition of "omnipotent" that I gave is the definition used when describing God. The Omnipotence Paradox fails because an omnipotent Being can't do the logically impossible. This is an uncontroversial aspect of omnipotence. Con is trying to re-define omnipotence in order to give himself the win.Con's first argument: Free WillI did not say free will can be taken away, I said it can be usurped. You can be coerced into performing an action against your will by threat of force or fear. You are still a free moral agent, but if given the choice to perform an act or be killed is really no choice at all.In my example, I was not thinking of a menial task like running in circles. I was thinking more along the lines of being mugged. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to give them all your money, it would be foolish to choose death. Your life is worth more than all the money you would be carrying. The best thing to do is give them your money. This does not mean you were not free to choose otherwise, but the choice you were making was not a free choice. This doesn't mean you don't have free will, you were just not free to choose whether or not to give the mugger your money.God allows us to make free choices, since he gave us free will. He can't take that free will away, otherwise we would not be free moral agents. This doesn't mean he is incapable of taking it away (he could have created us as mindless automatons), but he chose to make us free moral agents.Almighty in power means you have the power to do anything that is logically possible. God create the universe; it takes an omnipotent being to do that. It does not entail the ability to do what is logically impossible.Con's argument from free will fails because it is unsound. Premise three is false because you don't have to control everything if you're omnipotent. In fact, to say that you must control everything is to not have control over your own actions.Con's second argument: The Omnipotence ParadoxOmnipotence, again, does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible (and his assertion that Alvin Plantinga overlooked this fact is laughable). I have already explained this fact, so I will not re-hash it here. Con's argument is unsound because his second and third premises are false. An omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible, so he can't create a stone so heavy he could not lift it. Any stone he could create, he could then lift. Saying that God can't do the logically impossible or can't do anything that is contrary to his perfect nature (e.g. God can't lie or be tempted with evil), is not to say that God is limited. God is almighty in power, meaning that he can do anything that is logically possible or within his nature to do.My first argument: KCAThe cake analogy is a false analogy, as I have shown, because anyone can make a cake. It does not imply omnipotence to be able to bake a cake, since humans known how to bake and they have the pre-existing materials with which to bake it. God created the entire universe (some 14.7 billion light-years across) from nothing, no pre-existing materials. An omnipotent Being is needed to do that. If God was not omnipotent, he could not have created the universe ex nihilo.I'm aware that Con never said the universe is eternal; just the opposite. But that works in my favor. Con conceded the argument in round two, so this argument succeeds. And since an omnipotent Being is needed to create the universe, the creater must be an intelligent, omnipotent Being. Since nothing can come from nothing uncaused, the Creator must have the intelligence to create and to want to create, and the power with which to do it.The sea of transient energy has not always existed. It came into existence with the universe at the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang event was the event that created the universe, and the universe is described as all space, matter, time, and energy, then the sea of transient energy was created at the Big Bang. Before that point was literally nothing, and nothing can come from nothing uncaused.The argument succeeds because Con conceded it, and the argument points to an omnipotent Being as the universe's creator.My second argument: The Ontological ArgumentPremise one succeeds, as a maximally great Being is not impossible. Since it is possible that God exists, the rest of the argument follows necessarily using the rules of modal logic.The argument makes absolute sense. The concept of "possible worlds" is not a nonsensical argument to show God's existence. The concept of possible worlds is a legitimate tool in a modern philosopher's arsenal to consider the universe as it could be, and to test certain theories. Since a maximally great Being must exist necessarily, and if a maximally great Being could exist in some possible worlds, then since it is possible that God exists, and God exists in some possible worlds, then since God is necessary he exists in all possible worlds, including this one (the actual world). This is an uncontroversial philosophical concept. Numbers are also necessary entities. Numbers exist in all possible worlds.The argument succeeds, showing that God exists following the rules of modal logic.My third argument: TCACon has conceded the first premise, citing lack of relevance. Unfortunately for him, it's a very relevant premise. Since motion is a form of change, and nothing can change unless acted on by an outside force (since change is passing from potency to act), then there must be an Unmoved Mover who set everything in motion.Since nothing can set itself into motion, there had to have been a First Cause, an Unmoved Mover who is pure actuality (this First Cause cannot have any potentiality, since there would be nothing that could actualize any of his potentials).The argument succeeds.ConclusionI have shown by my three arguments that it is more probable that God exists than that he doesn't. I have also shown how Con's two arguments fail to disprove God's existence (though it's refreshing to see an Atheist try to disprove God rather than simply shifting the burden of proof onto the Theist). Con's cake analogy is a false analogy because it is not in any way analogous to the creation of the universe. Baking a cake is baking from pre-existing materials, whereas God created the universe from absolutely nothing. Nothing can come from nothing uncaused.I thank Con again for debating the issue with me.