God exists

R1) Fine tuning Interdependence of the physical constantsCon notes that the the physical constants of the universe are interdependent and thus the impression of fine tuning is down-scaled. However, this unevidenced "what if" scenario is simply false for multiple reasons. Firstly, most constants are determined by their equations independent of ANY other constants or at most only one constant where the change would actually make fine tuning less probable, one such example is the cosmological constant. Secondly, if this is true, it would be a very very rare situation because most constants address different topics within the framework of physics. For example, the improbability of the initial low entropy state (1 in 10^10^123) has absolutely nothing to do with the unlikely electron:proton ratio. These two constants for example are absolutely distinct, not interlated nor independent on one another. Moreover, it is possible, even more likely, for the universe to have existed without some of those vital constants to the development of life. This former point alone is enough to throw Con's unevidenced assertion out of the window since you can have constants not existing at all i.e. =0 and the other constants will exist fine without any influence from the absent constant which disproves the notion of interdependency.Multiverse No sophisticated atheist really takes this objection seriously. The obvious and self-proclaiming problem with this defense is that it violates occam's razor[1], that entities should not be multiplied unnneccesarily. The multiverse does exactly that. It multiplies a plethora and infinitude of universes to account for the fine tuning of one universe. The more logical, simpler and scientifically viable is the simpler one[1] namingly that one entity designed the cosntants of this universe rather than the atheist's desperate attempt at creating infinity of entities and universes to account for the fine tuning of this universe. Where did the other universes come from? Who created them? Who fine tuned their constants such as the cosmological constant or the initial low entropy to allow them to even exist? The explanation should give an answer rather than multiply the question by infinity. God's explanation is grounded in his necessity.Cyclical universesThis attempt also suffers from the same problem as the multiverse. Moreover, this attempt is probably even worse than its deseperate brethern since this one violates the philosophical principle of infinite regress. Had the universe been trying random constants for a past-eternity, it would never get to the current state nor the big bang. The progonosis for this is that if the singularity of the big bang or the universe in general is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang due to infinite regress. If you are stuck in an infinity, you would never reach the current state since it would LITERALLY take you forever. Skeptics would like to point out that B theory of time deals with this issue. However, invoking b theory does not resolve anything since now the singularity is travelling through an infinity of equally real time for an eternity and is thus stuck in past-infinity and would never get to the big bang due to being stuck in infinity and due to infinite regress. But the universe did get to the big bang (evidenced by CMBR, redshift of galaxies, etc.).God and designGod has his own explanation in his necessity as the agreed upon definitions therefore design would be the most scientifically viable explanation in accordance with Occam's Razor (One God entity vs INFINITE universe entities). R2) OntologicalOn the first premise God is a possible entity to exist since it is not a logical contradicition. All of con's supposed contradictions have been debunked in the previous round but could be recaped in the following : God can do whatever he wants to do, but what he wants to do is determined by him and his other properties / nature.On the second premise Con denies that necessity is entailed in the properties of a maximally great being. This is a focal demonstration of Con's philosophical ignorance and incompetency. In philosophy, there are two sets of properties. Great-making properties and lesser making properties. Greater making properties are those which are better to have than not and that make you "great" such as power, knowledge, goodness and necessity (existing in every possible world), by contrast, lesser-making properties are those which are negative to have such as evil, impotence, ignorance, contingency (only existing under certain conditions). [2] A maximally great being would have all of the great-making properties to the fullest extent including necessity since it is better and more powerful and great to have absolute and unchallenged existence in every possible world than for your existence to be limited to some possible worlds and to be contingent on a set of greater conditions that determine your existence. This obviously goes against the concept of God since God is the greatest (maximally great) and there could be nothing that determines or limits his existence. On Con's childish hamster analogyFrankly, this analogy is embarrasing to whoever proponent is proposing this. Not only does this analogy's premises shatter when applied in light of modal logic. The argument is not even close to comparable nor analogous to the ontological argument since a hamster is not a maximally great being. A hamster is not necessary but is contingent on the existence of his parents which shows that the hamster does not have one great-making property and is therefore NOT a maximally great being. Moreover, th hamster lacks infinite power and knowledge which shows that he is lacking another set of great-macking properties to the fullest extent and is therefore not a maximally great being. By contrast, God is by definition a maximally great being."God is a necessary being- that is to say, that he necessarily exists. However, this was not substantiated, and so may be dismissed." - ConThe ontological argument is designed to prove that there must be a maximally great and necessary being who exists in the actual world. This maximally great being matches perfectly with the definition of God in most scriptures of Sikhism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc. Moreover, this is a violation of the rules since Con agreed to the definition that God is a necessary being.R3) KalamOn inductive reasoning and the universe obeying its own lawsCon's argument that the universe does not have to obey its own laws since it is on the macroscopic level is an unevidenced bare assertion. Firstly, science presupposes the uniformity of nature and that the laws apply equally to everything and everywhere. If Con could provide some evidence to this he would not only win this debate, he would disprove science in its entirety. Secondly, this is false because we can apply our inductive reasoning and physical laws to both the parts and the whole and that's the whole goal of inductive reasoning. For example, scientists can take the physical laws such as the increase of entropy in a closed system overtime from the parts (closed systems within the universe) and apply that to the entire universe (heat death of the universe). On quantum mechanicsWhoever uses this defense is either misinformed or frankly an intellectually dishonest person. This idea that something can just pop into existence from nothing and by nothing stems from Krauss' book "a universe from nothing". What the layman does not understand is that by nothing, Krauss actually means quantum vacuum energy. Quantum vacuum energy is NOT nothing, it is a sea of fluctuating energy that produces virtual particles as a result of those fluctuations. [3] Even worse, this vacuum fluctuating energy sea is goverened by physical laws and has a physical structure that can literally be observed. Krauss literally had to pull his book out of the shelves and sneak in the chapters "How you can get a universe from almost nothing." because his book and his ideas got humiliated within the scientific world. Nothing can pop into existence without a cause Con, There ain't no free lunch.On Cyclical universes1) Disproven by the BGV theorem.This notion and mere speculation that the universe could go into an infinite and unending cycle has been disproven by experimental findings and theorems such as BGV theorem. The BGV theorem' conclusion is that the universe must have a definite space-time beginning and the results also extends to the quantum intepretation. [4] Alex Vilenkin has explictly that any universe which is in a cycle of big bang and big crunches is too unstable to even exist. [5]2) Infinite regressIf the universe is past-eternal and has been going on for a past eternity trying on new faces violates multiple philosophical principles, but notably infninte regress. If the universe is past-eternal, it would have to go through an INFINITE past sequence of events (A theory) or experience an infinity of equally real events (B theory). However, if the universe has been experiencing an infinity of events such as a past infinity of big bangs and big crunches, it would never get to this big bang since it would literally be STUCK IN INFINITY of big bangs and big crunches and would literally take forever to get to this big bang i.e. would never get to this big bang. But it did get to this big bang as evidenced by the CMBR, redshift of galaxies, etc.R4) Miscellaneous Boulder He would be able to create a boulder bigger than the disputed one but he would still be able to lift it since he is by nature omnipotent. Why does he have to be unable to lift it.KnoweldgeYour argument is begging the question. You are presupposing God knows everything (omniscience) but he can not know how it feels like to know new things so he is not omniscient. I have no interest discussing such childness and tangents.OmnipresenceSame as knowledge.