Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

IntroductionPro talks about all the things God "could" be, and God "could be" something different than my definition entails. However, God "could be" different than any definition we use in a debate. If I define God as X, My opponent could say that God "could be" Y. This is intellectual dishonestly folks. We have to use a specified definition in this debate, or else we are not debating anything! Also, the laws of logic would be part of God's nature, not something he created. Pro never defined God, so he left the door open to my definition. Also, my definition was based on a TAG version of God, which should have been expected since Pro claimed he was going to argue God from logic. If he does not like it, that's too bad, as Pro did not define God in the beginning. My definition is self-evidently beyond fair. He mentions a Panentheistic definition:"God is the universe (pantheistic argument). The universe is everything INSIDE the universe. The universe excludes everything outside the universe (other universes).Thus God does not exist EVERYWHERE, but has boundaries."However, the above is problematic. This is not a definition that includes consciousness, or a living being. Pro is just calling nature, "God". You can call nature "a fork" but that is just semantics. I was under the impression my opponent wanted to have a serious debate on God's existence, however, it seems as if I was mistaken. Even if my definition does not apply to every type of God that exists, the rules never said my argument had to attack any type of God that can exist. Pro claimed he was going to be presenting TAG, so my definition was in line with a TAG definition. Once more, Pro did not define God in the beginning, thus he left the door open to my definition. I am not going back on it. Pro also does not have the right to make me go back on it. Modal Ontological Argument(s) for AtheismSince Pro ignored my argument, it stands. I showed Atheism is probably true using the Modal Argument for Atheism. This wins me the debate alone. Pro implied he was going to use TAG, so I used a TAG definition. This is more than reasonable.Intelligent DesignThis argument has nothing to do with logic suggesting that God may exist. I thought the resolution involved Pro showing God exists using logic, not fine-tuning. This is a bizarre debate that I never should have accepted, as Pro clearly does not know what he is doing. Additionally, he mentions how the universe is just right for life. However, there are many explanations which do not involve God. Paul Davies believes that due to time loops, and the quantum "fuzziness" at the beginning of the universe, that humans beings collapsed the wave-functions of the past to get our fine-tuned constants. So, God wouldn't fine-tune the universe, in a sense, we would using backwards causation to do this by observation of the universe essentially. Now, retro-causality has been confirmed as a real phenomenon in Quantum Mechanics[1]. So, the universe is fine-tuned for life, but not to due to a God outside the universe, or even a God inside the universe. Human beings are enough. Now, retro-causality does not always lead to a paradox. The universe could be engaged in a self-consistent causal loop:"There's a famous story, I think originating with Richard Feynman, about the time traveler who goes back in time and, in an adaptation of the grandmother-killing scenario, decides to shoot his younger self to see what would happen. He takes a rifle with him, seeks out his younger self and raises the rifle to shoot through the heart. But his aim isn't very good, it's a little bit wobbly, so he hits his younger self in the shoulder instead, merely wounding him. The reason his aim isn't so good is because he's got this shoulder wound from an earlier shooting incident! So you see, it's possible to conceive of temporal loops of that sort without encountering a paradox." - Paul Davies[2] Note how this is not intelligent design, but simply intelligence engaged in a time loop collapsing quantum fuzziness. Thus, the universe being just right for us, could be due to us and not God or any multiverse. There are many ways to explain the apparent fine-tuning without appealing to God. ConclusionPro implied he was going to use TAG. I used a TAG definition of God, now in this round Pro switches the goal posts and argues for fine-tuning. I urge voters to knock conduct points off with regards to Pro, because what he is doing here is not very ethical. Even if fine-tuning leads to God, that doesn't mean that logic leads to God regardless. The resolution would still not be established. However, I showed that one can explain fine-tuning without God. Also, my definition stands as Pro never specified a definition in the beginning. Since Pro did not touch the Modal Ontological Argument, I have met my burden.Sources[1] http://www.popsci.com...[2] http://www.edge.org...