God exists.

As this is the last round and we never agreed as to who has it, continuing this conversation seems rather pointless. After all, during the debate I have provided an argument in favor of god's existence(Kalam argument) while my opponent has offered an argument against god's existence(Ultimate Boeing 747 argument). So while my opponent and I have pointlessly argued over who in this debate has the BOP, in practice we have shared it. It is for this reason that my opponent and I's fight over who has the BOP is not only pointless but counterproductive in this debate. Omnnipotence My opponent argues that I must prove that the god I am defending is omnipotent in order to prove it's existence. This simply boils down to who in this debate has the BOP. Does my opponent as instigator of this debate retain the BOP? Or do I as defender of the resolution retain the BOP? Regardless of the answer to this question, this debate is not on whether or not the god I am defendng is omnipotent or not. It is on whether or not it exists. God's timelessness //"Where's the warrant that the universe created time? "// First, I never argued that it was the universe which created time. I argued that as time is an inherent part of the universe, it logically follows that a being who created the universe would have also created time. So, it logically follows from my own definition of god, that it is the creator of the universe, that it would stand outside of time. Existence of rival theories I argued that the existence of rival theories as to the formation of the universe does not in itself prove that my own theory is false. My opponent countered with: //"But it doesn't prove your theory true. "// My opponent here makes the mistake of thinking that I was attempting to use the existence of rival theories to prove my own to be true. However it was my opponent who brought them up in a vain attempt to disprove the existence of god. My opponent is correct though in that the existence of the Big Bang theory does not in intself prove god's existence. However this is a moot point in that neither does the color of the laptop on which I am typing this debate. Just because something does not help my theory does not by itself mean that it detracts from it. The universe began to exist //"Who said the universe began to exist? Where's the warrant? It's clearly just a theory that you've just asserted to be true, but I've provided evidence that suggests an equally plausible theory. There's absolutely no reason to believe your theory over mine, which is more than enough to mitigate any offense of yours. "// The universe beginning to exist at some point is actualy backed up by sound science. However, if there is not reason to believe your theory over mine then we may simply allow the voters to decide. Just because you can provide another theory does not itself take away from the logical viability of my own. God needs a cause I have repeadetly claimed that for something to begin to exist, it needs a cause. This follows from simple logic. If one applies this logic to the universe, it would need a cause. However if one were to apply this logic to the god which I am advocating then it does not need a cause. Because the need for a cause rests on the point of existence. If something never came into existence then it does not need a cause. My opponent has chosen to completely ignore this however. My opponent in a last ditch effort to win this debate has stated that voters should vote for him because if god is ismply the cause of the universe then unless there are new universes being created, god does not fit the definition of 'exists'. This is simply a cheap semantics argument which my opponent himself asked that I not use. It is for this reason that I ask voters to disregard this 'argument' and give Pro the conduct vote. As for arguments, my opponent simply picked at whether or not the universe needed a cause or not. He gave no warrant why the universe did not need a cause. He only stated that there were other theories. So, for arguments I urge a Pro vote. As for spelling and grammar I believe we were tied but if you find more mistakes on my part then my opponent's feel free to award him that point. As for sources, I believe that my opponent and I were tied in that we both provided an adequate amount of sources when we presented our arguments.