Occam's Razor can successfully defend the existence of God

Ok my opponent has utterly missed the point. In order for something to be able to be defended by Occam's Razor, that something has to be POSSIBLE. I have effectively shown that the Abrhamic god can't exist. Pro says: "here did this explosion come from? What caused it? I like to use the illusion of a ladder. You start at the top of the ladder and work your way down. Each rung down is what caused the previous thing. What caused the big bang? What caused the thing that caused the thing that caused the big bang? And so on and so fourth. The ladder may be longer for some people or shorter. Eventually everyone is going to be stumped."Now his argument is that everything needs a cause. Once again, this is false. In quantum physics, particles come in and out of existence with no cause. Pro says: "Axiom 1, Everything has cause, is falseThis can easily be remedied by my assertion that God created everything because he wanted to. It is simple and to the point. Occam's Razor supports this."NO. This is not a solution. Even if pro's assertion was true, it would only establish things that have cause are caused by god.Pro says:"Axiom 2 has the same answer. The cause for everything, the universe, as stated by Pastor Warren in The Purpose Driven Life is, for God's enjoyment."First, I don't care what a non-cosmologist has to say about the early universe. Second, not everything has a cause. Pro says:"Axiom 3 AND my opponent's claim that Theism is a poor cosmological model because there is no way to test it, is false, at least to a point. Though my opponent says there is no way to have a transcendent universe, there ARE ways to test God's transcendence. Christian's know what atheists do not. And that is that God is not a phyisical being, but a transcendent one. [1]A transcendent God follows three criteria: Self-revolution, Authoritative, and Miraculous. In order to test these three criteria, one would have to read the bible which is riddled with evidence of these three criteria.[2] In order to disprove the Bible, one would have to first disprove the existence of God and the easiest way to do that would be to disprove the Bible as truth. And again, in order to disprove anything in the bible, you would need to disprove God. You would be a dog chasing its tail. It is just pointless."This is really just a bunch of nonsense. He makes an appeal to the bible. He says I neeed to disprove god in order to disprove anything in the bible. I think I have demonstrated god to be impossible given that he has not responded to the contradictions that arise from the traits.On omniscience my opponent says:"My opponent talks repeatedly of God's omnicience. Is first two points on this are true"Pro fails to mention the logical conclusion. God's actions are predetermined. If god knows his future 100%, then god has no free will. So if free will and omniscience are traits needed for the god we are talking about, then the god can't exist.In regards to the problem of evil he says: "'Does God want to prevent evil? Yes[3]Does God know how evil came to be? Yes[4]Does God have the power to prevent evil from coming? Yes So god can and does want to stop evil, but he's just not.This god is essentially lazy then. If he can and wants to but isn't,what's the point of him wanting and being able to? And I'm a consequentialist. I'm sure my opponent will attack some strawman of consequentialism. I specifically embrace a kind of utilitarianism. An external and omniscient cause can't exist: P1:Observers collapse quantum superpositions. P2:An omniscient observer would observe all superpositionsP3:An omniscient observer would collapse all superpositionsP4:All superpositions have not collapsedC: An omniscient observer does not exist.Conclusion: Pro has not responded to the semantic incoherence of the attributes of the christian god.Pro has not offered a refutation to any of the eternal universe models.Pro has not demonstrated that the universe needs a cause.Until Pro deals with the semantic incoherence, his god can't exist. The attributes are contradictory, so this god can't logically exist. I think we can conclude Occam's Razor does not favor his god, just on the basis that the semantic incoherence occurs. Not only is an external cause uneeded, but with the addition of my argument from quantum superpositions, I think I have demonstrated an external cause to be impossible.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://plato.stanford.edu...(Also note that all of pro's sources are from christian apologetic websites. His info is biased.)