It is likely that a God or gods exist

The Omnipotence Paradox and Reverse Ontological Argument. I concede that the Omnipotence Paradox is irrelevant to this debate - not the RMOA. If we were to replace "MOA", with "God" or "Gods", then the argument would be completely acceptable.P1:It is possible that"God" or "Gods" do not exist.P2:If it is possible that"God" or "Gods" do not exist, then"God" or "Gods" do not exist in some possible world.P3:If "God" or "Gods" do not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.P4:If "God" or "Gods" do not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.P5: If "God" or "Gods" do not exist in the actual world, then"God" or "Gods" do not exist.C: Therefore, "God" or "Gods" do not exist.The same criteria applies for this argument as well. This argument utilizes S5 Modal axiom to deduce that "God" or "Gods" necessarily don't exist. " if X is possibly necessary, it is necessary in at least one possible world; hence it is necessary in all possible worlds and thus is true in all possible worlds." (1) For something to exist in at least one possible world it must be coherent. For Pro to refute this argument, then Pro would have to inherently show why a non-existent deity/deities are incoherent.Atemporal MindsPro strawmans this argument, as he states "If you make a house, are you not allowed to live in the house you made?" This completely evades the intentions of this argument. The argument dictates that a mind cannot exist outside space-time. These deities would have to exist outside space-time first before they create it. He then states "Even a timeless mind can hold beliefs and knowledge eternally, without ever interacting in time." However, minds involve processes that do which renders the refutation inadequate.KCAPro opines "how can something come from nothing when nothing does not have any properties?" I need not answer this, since it does not deductively point in the direction of a deity. My intentions were completely ignored in this argument. He provided no justification for his first premise, and completely ignores the appeal to intuition fallacy. Pro still hasn't provided a reasonable amount of tangible evidence to prove its veracity. Therefore, the accusation of a very informal fallacy is not applicable. He states that I did not "provide an alternate, compelling theory to compete with the standard Big Bang model". I never denied the veracity of the Big Bang. Pro again, strawmans this argument. Pro stated that the Big Bang inferred creation out of nothing. However, it was expansion of space-time. I need not provide an alternate theory for that isn't my burden to carry. Pro completely ignored my refutation to his finite universe argument. I stated that the contingencies of entropy did not exist until after the Big Bang, so therefore, entropy would not need to increase for an infinite amount of time, if the universe is infinite. That's not even the problem here, Pro made the positive assertion that "However, if the past was infinite, then the entropy in the universe by now would be so great that life would be unable to exist." Yet provides no evidence for it. For this reason, premise two lacks validity.Pro ignores that "metaphysically impossible" is relative to people. It does not mean "paradoxical". Hilbert's hotel paradox does not entail an oxymoron. Pro states " what is infinity minus infinity?" It does not matter if it is equal to infinity. 0 -0 = 0 - just because two values subtracted from eachother result in the same value, does not entail an oxymoron. All you have stated is that infinity is a weird concept. Pro has not debunked infinity.Since both premises lack validity, the argument is a non-sequitur.Teleological ArgumentI never said that I deny the existence of fine-tuning, I stated that you did not provide any evidence for it. If the universe is fine-tuned, Pro has provided no evidence to why it must be a God that tuned it. For this reason, this argument does not suffice.Religious Experiences"My opponent provides almost no case against the Argument from Religious Experiences." That's because I stated right after, that I ran out of characters. If it's any consolation MGB does not necessitate modal logic. So when I say "necessarily", it does not entail a MGB.The flaw of this argument is that, it fails to provide objective evidence. Faith is RELATIVE, meaning that it is valid for every frame of reference if it has no proof whatsoever. Pro says "Moreover, he points out that some people do not feel an inner divine presence. But this objection is as weak as saying that since some people are color-blind, colors do not exist!" However, colours are proven by science! It's like me saying, the bogeyman exists because 'I can feel it'. And someone else saying 'well, I don't feel it', and your logic would dictate that the person who could 'feel it' is more valid than the opposing view. Pro completely ignores Occam's Razor and gives ambiguity precedence! "very very many people throughout the world and throughout history have had religious experiences. . There is a very simple explanation of them, namely that the divine exists."You provide absolutely no evidence at all. Many people believe in ghosts, does that mean that they 'must exist'? Occam's Razor completely negates this argument, since simplicity takes precedence when no evidence is involved. (2)ConclusionI have defended the RMOA and the Atemporal Minds argument. KCA is refuted, since Pro still appeals to intuition to provide proof of its veracity - therefore he commits the appeal to intuition(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...