The Best Evidence/Argument For God's Existence

AveI want to begin by noting that the defenses of P1 (1.2, 1.2) and P2 (2.1, 2.2) stand at this point in the debate. Con doesn't dispute that P3 is entailed by P1 and P2. This means that P1, P2, and P3 of the argument are affirmed. Now, let's turn to the contentions offered by Con in his last round.Contention OneCon's criticism can be answered by simply rewriting the argument to incorporate the options I gave in 4.2. The argument would therefore look like this:P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being, an abstract object, or a non-personal force.P2) The cause of the universe is not an abstract object or a non-personal force.C) The cause of the universe is a conscious beingAs Con implicitly says, contention one was more of a nitpick rather than a counterargument. Before I move on to contention two, I want to note that Con agrees that the cause of the universe cannot be an astract object. This part of the first premise is therefore affirmed.Contention TwoCon's criticism is slightly pedantic. The ontological status of the non-personal force is analogous to "floating around". I was not attempting to give it a literal position in space and time. It's a device for conceptualizing this non-personal force, not an exact description.Furthermore, we don't have to describe the non-personal force as existing before time, but simply sans time. This gets around the criticism from Con that there is no before time.Contention Three3.1) Con states that my argument is really an argument from ignorance. This is the logical fallacy where you state that "X is true because it has not been proven false" or "X is false because it has not been proven true". Con has failed to specifically identify what portion of my argument makes this fallacy.Rather, my argument is an argument about comparing two hypotheses on the origins of the universe. Hypothesis A is better than Hypothesis B if it explains some fact about the universe, F, better. Hypothesis A, which states that a personal cause brought the universe into being, explains the beginning of the universe through a will of a personal being. Hypothesis B, which states that a non-personal force caused the universe, fails to explain why, or even how, the universe began to exist. Therefore, a personal cause is more plausible than a non-personal force.What part of my argument states that X is true because it has not been proven false? Nowhere in my debate have I said that a personal cause brought the universe into being because the idea hasn't been proven false. What part of my argument states that a non-personal force didn't bring the universe into being because it hasn't been proven true? My argument only states that a non-personal force probably didn't bring the universe into being because it's explanatorily inferior to another hypothesis. The charge that my argument makes the fallacy of ignorance is unsupported.3.2) Con has not provided any proof that a mind has to have a brain, so I could stop right here. As he suggests, it begs the question to object to the argument based on the idea that mind depends on a brain. Furthermore, the idea that it's meaningless to speak about things outside of the universe is an atheistic assumption, because it would make the idea of god meaningless.Contention FourThis isn't a contention; It's a summary.ConclusionThis is a short and simple round on my part, because most of my contentions were agreed to, and Con's arguments were easy to respond to. Thanks to Con for the debate.Vale