It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Okay. So for your intro. I have offered sound arguments for the existence of God. You know just arguing from the hypothetical. Every theory regarding cosmological origins has led back to God. I have successfully argued for the existence of a necessary being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, etc. You have not refuted my arguments for God and thus they stand. You know that and now you are trying to change the debate from discussing sound rational arguments to stating that " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I have presented such evidence in my cosmological arguments and moral arguments. You say that "My opponent relies upon attacking other ideas for the existence of the universe, and then claiming God as a default." I have not attacked other theories but have simply presented and defended my arguments for God and one of the ways I have defended my arguments is by refuting other arguments. You say "Humans did not imagine there was any galaxies at all until about 500 bce let alone that there are billions." This is true but we still have a wonderful imagination. I think the ontological argument for the existence of God can deal with Human imagination arguments. In conclusion. I see that my opponent has a hidden pride that they have not swallowed which is hurting their abilities to concede defeat. You say "Without solid evidence of God, I can just reply your evidence is weak to non-existent. Assume I did so for all claims that I have not responded to." This is just pure intellectual dishonesty. You heard my arguments which you have not refuted and thus it is your responsibility to either withdraw from your current position or at least hold it off anything else is arrogance and intellectual dishonesty. Rationalwiki is biased. Not just in it's philosophical and theological positions but also in its political positions. RationalWiki Online wiki devoted to propagating left-wing ideals without explicitly stating so. The title "Rational Wiki" is deliberately misleading, as it implies a logical, unbiased, emotionally detached approach when the site reads like a hotly opinionated liberal blog. According to RationalWiki, "reality has a liberal bias," not them. RationalWiki Basically atheism plus wiki. RationalWiki is a skeptics' wiki that was initially created by atheists as a response to conservapedia to debunk its content. The site's initial focus on debunking creationism and religion in general has then shifted to debunking all sorts of crazy belief systems, such as holistic medicine, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, holocaust denial, climate change denial, and alien abductions. This is where the "rational" part ends, unfortunately. Because they just had to start talking about social issues on top of that, and do so with a shameless SJW leaning. Their article on antifeminism claims that anyone who identifies as an egalitarian is actually a member of the patriarchy hiding his true sexism behind a mask of wanting equality. Their article on "Gender binary" claims that believing that there are only two genders is actually an ideology deeply ingrained in the public consciousness, and that this ideology somehow makes society impose rigid traditional and "socially accepted" roles on members of each gender. It also blames the "uneven power relationships gender binarity produces and maintains". Their article on rape culture literally asserts that rape culture is a big problem in our modern society, without providing any kind of evidence of those cultural examples actually causing rape. They have a huge article on the burden of proof but make outrageous claims on social issues with zero valid evidence. RationalWiki is the living proof of what you get when atheism gets infected by SJW ideology. You once again make assumptions when you know that you cannot win. It is time for you to concede. Friend. I debate because I search for Truth I believe you do the same. I debate atheists just as much as I debate WBBC. Read this to find the Dawkins Delusion https://www.reasonablefaith.org... In conclusion of your religious virus stuff. I think that critical thinking and debate will help us find the truth. However, I have presented how that truth does not rest in Atheism and I will continue to do so. The answer most like rest in religion but the question is which religion. I believe that religion is Christianity. I am not a Christian or a Theist because I was brought up in that type of household. My sexual orientation and my once but now refuted belief that Faith and Reason contradict could have been enough to make me an agnostic. I don't believe I could ever be an Athiest ever. I have three videos I want you to watch. In Conclusion. My opponent has subconscious pride that they must swallow in order to concede what is a clear and justified defeat. This is backed up by the fact that my opponent argues that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence even though I have given that using physics and biology. My colleague with there statements of sloppy thinking and so-called correlation fails to recognize that logic does not contradict faith and that my argument s are sound and have not been refuted. My opponent in order to keep their intellectual honesty must concede defeat and either remove themselves from their current position or withhold such position Other sources: https://www.urbandictionary.com...