It's probable that the God exists

RebuttalsCreation of the UniversePro opens with, “You can't have a universe without it being created...”. This is a bare assertion: the Big Bang Theory describes the beginning of the observable universe. What may have occurred prior to this is not observable (it has no observable consequences) and is, thus, not subject to anything more significant than conjecture. The claim that the universe was "created" requires direct evidence or else it can be dismissed as baseless speculation.Various Quotes and ScripturesPro presents several quotes by Stephen Hawking and biblical scripture that are unaccompanied by any explanation whatsoever. Unless Pro explains how they pertain to the debate, they're irrelevant.The Hawking ModelPro states, "According to the Hawking model, there was nothing before the big bang, not space, matter, nor even time". To quote from the very same source that Pro cited:“Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.” [1]Further explanation and evidence will be required from Pro in order to justify his statement. Further, Pro must explain how "before the Big Bang" is coherent, because "before" is a time-dependent concept while before Big Bang is asserted to have no time.Ontological ArgumentPro presents an argument reminiscent of the ontological argument for God, in which Pro attempts to "define" God into existence. Definitions are invented by humans for the purpose of relating and communicating concepts. To then use a definition to prove some claim about reality is nonsensical, rendering this argument nothing more than imaginative, vacuous, philosophical rhetoric.Finite and Infinite RealityPro conflates an additional issue with the ontological argument and readdresses this again at the end of Round 3. Pro presents a dilemma in which whether reality is finite or infinite, some "highest conceivable being" must exist. The term "(in)finite reality" doesn't make sense and Pro will need to clarify: what does this mean, exactly? Does "reality" pertain to space? Time? Matter?Regarding "finite reality" and in consideration of Pro's hypothetical examples regarding "something existing inside of nothing", if Pro refer to this nothing as a "true" nothing, then these examples are entirely incoherent because by saying "...inside of nothing", that is inferring that "nothing" at least has spatial existence, which contradicts the concept.In regard to an "infinite reality", Pro must explain how this leads to the necessary existence of some "highest conceivable being by default".Superstring TheoryPro seems to be alluding to a model of reality with the basis of Superstring Theory, which is completely unexplained in terms, and is not yet been connected to the resolution of the debate. In any case, Superstring Theory faces a number of criticisms such as the lack of falsifiability, making it dangerous close to becoming a pseudoscience (if it isn't already). The cornerstone of science is falsifiability, and all scientific models must be testable and falsifiable. In other words even the best and most elegant scientific models must be subject to being proven wrong by experimental or observational data [2]. Due to this, any argumentation that is based on this Theory inherits the logical fallacy known as Unfalsifiability, which is confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons [*].Defense of the Argument from Human NaturePro offers a series of short responses to a few choice sentences from the argument, which have no impact on its veracity or conclusion. At the end of Round 3, Pro presents something that resembles portions of his own case, so this was included in the rebuttal, above.The initial response from Pro appears to be a conclusion, "So atheists have a strong confirmation bias of things that are not there by statement of Con.", that was drawn from a specific sentence in the argument, "We are so strongly biased that we routinely see patterns even when they aren't there". There is no logical connection between the original sentence and Pro's conclusion and no explanation at all is provided. This renders the conclusion a Non Sequitur, which is a logical fallacy that means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises [*]. Pro must explain how (a) this conclusion logically follows and (b) how it is relevant to the argument's conclusion.Three of these responses state, 'this applies to atheism, too', which does nothing to address the truth of the statement, itself. This constitutes a logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque, which is effectively nothing more than saying, "Oh, yeah? Well, you too!", which doesn't serve to oppose the actual argument whatsoever [*]. In response to these statements, all humans are susceptible to the cited phenomena to varying degrees, and no specific group of people was being targeted. If Pro believes these statements possess merit, then they must be elaborated.In response to a sentence in the argument that points to a tendency for more analytical-minded people to be irreligious, Pro describes himself as an "anomaly" and attempts to establish himself as an authority on the matter. This indicates that Pro did not understand that this only reflect a trend (like all cited psychological phenomenon) and is not any kind of rule. Pro's efforts here are misguided and unfounded.The closest Pro comes to providing some form of rebuttal is in the one-word statement, “Yet they all have the same basic construct", in response to a statement about our inability to perceived the truth if God actually exists. To this, I respond by saying that while there is a tremendous degree of variance in the details surrounding religious beliefs about God (or gods), the concepts tend towards having a human-like basis in personality and other aspects of their being. This commonality is explained by the psychological phenomenon of Anthropomorphism, which is the ubiquitous tendency to interpret non-human things and events in terms of human characteristics. People in all cultures have attributed human characteristics to deities, often including jealousy, pride, and love. Even deities with an animal form, or with no physical form at all, are thought to understand prayer and other symbolic communication. [3]Lastly, Pro responds to Occam's Razor by emphasizing the complexity of his "model". Here, Pro has somewhat shot himself in the foot: Pro misunderstood that it states that the simpler model is to be chosen as more likely, not the more complicated one! To reiterate, in terms of Occam's Razor, simplicity/complexity refers to the level of unnecessary assumptions that are added to the model or explanation.AtheismPro seems to be aiming attacks at atheism as if it were a belief system, which is is false. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in the existence of any god(s). That's literally the only critereon for qualifying as an atheist, which isn't even a belief, in of and itself. Certainly, there are those few atheist who posit the assertion that no gods exist at all, but that is not a necessary component to atheism. Even if it was, a single belief can hardly be called a "belief system", so neither atheism nor theism would be one. Belief systems are capture by religions, such as Chistianity, and religions can even be atheistic, like some sects of Buhdism [4].Sources[1] http://www.hawking.org.uk...[2] http://www.decodedscience.org...[3] http://www.britannica.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[*] Logical Fallacies: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...