If God created the universe then Monistic Idealism is probably true

Since Pro has forfeited the last round, my arguments have not been refuted. On these grounds alone, as I have demonstrated why Pro's description of the universe is not the most likely scenario, and thus are not "probably true", the resolution is negated. However, I see it as appropriate to show why Pro's only argument is faulty and guilty of tautology. Pro is using a classical deductive form for his argument, referred to here as "Disjunctive Syllogism" [1]. While this form is valid and is listed as such, there are problems with Pro's argument for other reasons. In the same list, you will see something called the "False Dichotomy" [1]. In the case of Pro's argument, we have instead a false trichotomy, as Pro has asserted that "If God created he universe, then there were 3 ways he could have done it:". Pro lists three ways indeed, but gives no reasoning as to why there cannot be more. Allow me to suggest some other methods which God might have used to create the universe, methods which Pro has not refuted or even mentioned: -God created the universe out of pre-existent qualities, laws, forces, etc. -God organized the processes of the universe, "creating" by using the early universe as a starting ground -God expanded himself to include the physical realm so that he might create the universe out of this part These are just three of the many other alternatives God might have used (all assuming the existence of God as per this debate and its definitions). You see, when creating a disjunction, you must be sure of two things: 1) that the items listed in the disjunction are the only possibilities, and 2) that the items are exclusive of each other, in that more than one of them cannot be possible. This is why the form Pro is using is also called the "Exclusive disjunction". How it works is that, if the above two conditions are true, all the thinker must do is negate all but one of the options. The most appropriate way to do this is by defending each option and showing that one of the options has a good defense, while the others can be ruled out. In Pro's case, he has not only set up a false trichotomy of options, where other options should have been included, but he has merely ruled out two options. His conclusion, that "God created the universe out of himself", has no evidence or backing behind it. Pro has formulated these possibilities from his imagination and is attempting to declare, without any reason, that the universe is the way he says it is, simply because it isn't the other two ways he mentioned. Anyone experienced in the tautology of William Lane Craig, the man in the video linked by Pro (wherein 90% of Pro's argument can be found), knows that arguments such as these make a mockery of classical deductive form using everything from clever wordplay to absolute circle logic. I already discussed in Round 3 how Pro's definition of God as "the grand-mind which is the cause and creator of all things that are not God" goes against his very conclusion. I accepted this definition with the assumption that Pro would provide me with good reason to assume its truth, but now I see that Pro was banking on the use of the word "grand-mind" to jump to his conclusion that the universe is all just part of "God's mind". I have already demonstrated in Round 3 why it is wrong to assume with any likelihood that the universe does not contain matter in the physical sense. Without any refutation of these arguments, they go far to discredit the idea that the universe is all mental, not physical, regardless of the nature of God. I ask again, if God caused all non-God things in the universe, but the universe is God, where did those non-God things go? Pro's argument does not account for this major contradiction. Pro's argument rests on an invalid form, makes hasty conclusions, and is, at its heart, incongruous with the very definitions set forth by this debate. Not only is his concept unlikely, but his argument is nearly devoid of logic and has no real backing or evidence. Pro's sources include blogs, a Christian apologist who received a degree from an institution where William Lane Craig is on staff, and the theology version of wikipedia. I have provided links to academic papers that have been peer-reviewed and will also include a video showing why William Lane Craig is not a proper source for good arguments in philosophy. I hope voters will see that I have not only committed more time to this debate, but that I have refuted Pro's arguments and shown why his is fundamentally flawed. Vote Con. [1] http://www.siue.edu... [2] (concerning William Lane Craig)