God exists.

First, the argument from contingency. How is it a non-sequitur? If all that exists is contingent there is no ultimate explanation. There is an ultimate explanation of existence IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THEREFORE that all that exists must not be contingent. I am not sure that you know what a non-sequitur is. Because my argument is actually logically sound. This does not mean that the premises are true, but IF they are true the conclusion follows NECESSARILY. There is no non-sequitur. If something is not contingent, it is necessary as I explained in my definitions. Therefore, since not all things are contingent, there exists a necessary being. My conclusion proves.The fallacy was that you assumed that there is no ultimate explantion. The BOP is on YOU to prove that. You didn't. Now, you Say P1 is false. You offer however no argument whatsoever for this assertion. It seems as though you cannot come up with one. I offered a coherent and complete explanation of why this is true. Ha ha ha. Is this a Ad Hom? I think it is. First off, you didn't prove anything in the first place. Please prove it without Circular reasoning. You haven't responded. If you think that P1 is false, let me ask you this question: Can you come up with an explanation for existence that includes all contingent things? since a contingent thing by definition points outside of itself for its existence, this would mean the ONLY way to have an explanation of all things existent would be to point outside of all things existent! But outside of all things existent is nothing. Therefore it follows that there is no ultimate explanation if all things are contingent. Premise 1 is 100% sound. The Big Bang? Anyway this is a subtle appeal to ignorance. "I dont know how a object could be created by a other object to infinity. Therefore God" I gave reasons, you failed to. Premise 2 you say is unfounded but I gave an explanation. I also gave an analogy to help explain. You see, there has to be an ultimate explanation. If we deny this, we deny the principle of sufficient reason, and essentially deny reason itself. Is atheism a position that denies reason itself?The analogy was irreavelnt. There is no real ultimate explanation yet.It is a fallacy to assume God. Why are you Straw Manning Atheism now? Finally, the big bang cannot be an ultimate explanation because it is not a necessary being. The big bang is not a being first of all its an event.The Big Bang was necessary! If we were not here, then the Big Bang isn't necessary! But we are here therefore...See the problem? You are posting fallacies again. The multiverse has some credibility. However, I will provide an article by a physicist. He goes through the anthropic coincidences and says why the various objections to them are not sound.http://www.firstthings.com...... Basically, the multiverse cannot explain everything because the very conditions of the multiverse would have to be "fine-tuned" to allow for anthropic coincidences. Hence the argument stands.Appeal to authority. I will 'drop' this becuase Dmot is pointing-- not arguing. Frankly, I dont see why the multiverse as a whole has to be fine tuned. Besides, why make the fallacy that life cannot arise in a different universe in other conditions? Please bring PROOF. the BOP is on you.Finally, my argument for the soul: You say that humans are not in part immaterial. Okay fine, but Did you even read my argument from qualia which I attempted to use to DEMONSTRATE that in fact humans are in part immaterial???? Look, if con does not even respond to my argument, the argument stands. I used the qualia argument to defend premise 1. My argument stands. I did. Did you read my rebuttal? You dropped it. This arguement is dropped by Dmot.THE PoE The problem is premise 5. How do you know? You need to defend this premise. What if God would ALLOW evil to exist in the world for some greater good? God is powerful so He can bring good out of evil?Then God is not All-Powerful. This is very clear. Please give me an example. The BoP is on you for premise 5. However, be careful. I explained that God has the power to bring good out of evil. It is conceivable that God has sufficient reason to allow evil. Unless there is NO POSSIBLE CONCIEVABLE reason for God to allow evil for a good purpose, then premise 5 fails. Again, you have to prove that there cannot be any way in which a loving God would allow evil. If you fail to do this, your entire argument fails. Remember, BOP is on you! Which seems tough given that throughout history atheists have failed to convince theistic philosophers that premise 5 is true. Plus proving a negative is very difficult.Sorry, my friend. The BOP is on you. The voters will vote, however. Please give an example. If you dont, you drop the PoE by default and basically forfeit because God wont be shown as All-Powerful/benevolent.Have a nice day.Dmot's case has large fallacies in it and failed to rebut my rebuttals. This is why my round is short. Also, I vouch for a point reduction to Dmot for subtle Ad Homs and his horrible formatting.