The Biblical God exist and is Morally justified!

Full Rebuttal:My opponent is under the false impression that I have to show why God does not exist in light of all this "evidence". However this is false, all I have to do is show why his reasons for God existing are not sufficient since he has the burden of proof. Also, most of his "evidence" has been bare assertions, and it's kind of hard to point out flaws in reasoning to an argument which is just asserted without reasoning to support it. My opponent is also under the false assumption that personal experience has any bearing on whether anybody else should believe you or not. My ex-girlfriend told me about a story about how her bed shook uncontrollably, and I have heard this story from other people too who believe they have been visited by ghosts. Of course, does this mean it actually happened? Of course not. Also, people claim to have been abducted by aliens, this happens all the time and they claim it is a "personal experience". Sometimes humans believe weird things, it's no biggie...Also, if there is always "something higher" then if we use this line of reasoning, there must be "something higher" than God if there is always something higher. If on the other hand, there is a limit to how much "higher" you can go, then why can't the limit be us, or some extraterrestrial?Pro seems to be claiming that I am not using rational thinking here, however this is exactly what I am doing by rationally demonstrating how irrational my opponent's arguments are.Contentions:"My opponent wants us to believe the universe does not need as cause. I think it is quite funny to claim many to have a illness then say that something came from nothing. Life came from non-life. That's a bold statement considering no one alive has seen things form from nothing. To suggest this of our universe is also a bold assertion that defies our physical laws." This is false, the universe could have sprang into existence uncaused and this would completely comply with the laws of physics, so it seems Pro needs to brush up on his knowledge:"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility" - Heinz Pagals. American Physicist, an adjunct Professor of Physics at Rockefeller UniversityAlexander Vilenkin (another well respected physicist) believes the universe began as a quantum nucleation event from an empty geometry without a cause. So to say that the laws of physics do not allow for this, is simply false.My opponent is also wrong about order needing in intelligence, this is false, most order in the universe is due to non-intelligent causation. There is much order seen in the patterns of snow flakes but the chemical reactions that occur in the clouds are not intelligent. There is much order seen in galaxy formations but gravity is not intelligent, it seems that when we produce order, we are in the minority compared to a grand scale of order coming from non-intelligent causation. Pro also asserts that it's a fallacy to think that God has to do whatever we want. However, this is straw-manning my stance (which is also a fallacy). I'm saying, that if there is a being who is all powerful and who cares about whether we suffer or not, then there is no good reason why he wouldn't help children who are starving. There may be one, but this situation is still much more likely on Atheism than Theism even if there is some possible escape route.So it seems that even if men are responsible for evil and moral decay, God knew we would do this because he is omniscient, so he still is responsible for it all because he could have not created us if he wanted, and spared reality from our evil ways. Thus, It's clear that if God exists, he is the sole reason why any suffering exists. However, God is defined as maximally good and omnipotent, but this being doesn't seem to exist in reality in light of this logic.Finally, Pro said there is no reason to question Gods motives if he exists. However, I disagree, he could be a deceiving God, and a deceiving God would want you to think just that.ConclusionPro's arguments here were pretty terrible, and he failed to meet his burden of proof. However, I met my burden in undermining his claims.