God exists.

Con's quotes are in quotation marks. I don't know how to bold on here. "The fallacy was that you assumed that there is no ultimate explantion." Con, I did not assume an ultimate explanation. Re: Contingent thing- something that has potential existence but depends on something else to actually exist (e.g. the human species) Necessary thing- something that does not have potential existence but exists by its own nature since its essence and the act of existence are one and the same. Ultimate explanation- An entity(s) that ties up all loose ends and gives final explanations to why contingent things exist. Argument 1)If all that exists is contingent, there is no ultimate explanation. 2)There is an ultimate explanation 3)Hence it follows that not all that exists is contingent, something must exist by necessity Defense of premise 1: If all that exists is contingent, it follows that all that exists has potential existence and depends on something else for its existence. Yet for "all that exists" to depend on something else for existence is to depend on something outside of "all that exists" in other words, to depend on something non-existing. Something non-existing, given that it is nothing, cannot function as an ultimate explanation as it leaves open the question "Why do contingent things exist, from where does their potential existence become actual existence?" Besides, nothing is not an entity that answers any questions. Defense of premise 2: There must be an ultimate explanation. Reason tells us to look for explanations. If atheists are reasonable, they should look for one too. Further, if there is no ultimate explanation, it follows that there is at least one question left open, in other words, one entity that"s existence is unexplained. If this is the case, it means something that has the potential to exist actually does exist yet nothing made this possibility of existing real. Someone may assert that the possibility itself is the cause of its reality. Yet this is absurd given sound metaphysics and understanding that potential or possibility has no power of its own"for obvious reasons. My conclusion follows. A necessary being exists. A necessary being is what is often meant by "God." You can deduce certain qualities about a necessary being but I lack the space for the day. Con, I have put forward my argument more than once. Now accept it and respond to it. "Ha ha ha. Is this a Ad Hom? I think it is. First off, you didn't prove anything in the first place. Please prove it without Circular reasoning." An Ad-Hom is an attack on you. This was an attack on your reasoning not you. Do you understand what circular reasoning is? I didn"t use it. If I did please give me an example. "The Big Bang? Anyway this is a subtle appeal to ignorance. "I dont know how a object could be created by a other object to infinity. Therefore God"" Con, I did not mention infinity. I said that if all things existed were contingent, there would be no UE. There is nothing there about not KNOWING. "The Big Bang was necessary!" I don"t see the problem. The big bang was an event; therefore it doesn"t even count as a being. Besides, the big bang was not necessary in the sense that it is causeless or it explains its own existence. If it were necessary by its own nature, this would mean we would not need to find an explanation of the big bang. Yet scientists who learn about quantum gravity are hoping to eventually find an explanation of the big bang in terms of QG"(as far as I understand). "Frankly, I dont see why the multiverse as a whole has to be fine tuned." It doesn"t matter what you see, it matters what science tells us. I gave a brief sketch and provided a link to all who want to learn more. A scientist explaining anthropic coincidences is no fallacy, it"s just the humility to recognize neither of us are experts in the area and we have minimum space here so let"s provide more information for all interested. In any case, my argument stands since you did not give any argument to rebut my claim about anthropic coincidences. "I did. Did you read my rebuttal? You dropped it. This arguement is dropped by Dmot." What was your rebuttal? Readers can go check, but as far as I can tell, this is the only thing you said about my argument for the immateriality of the soul: "False? Actually, answer me this: Are dreams immaterial? Light? Concepts?" However, this is by no means a rebuttal to the premise that humans are part immaterial. It is a question. I used an argument to demonstrate that my premise is true, something called the "qualia argument" which attempts to show that not all knowledge is physical. Did you respond to the argument? No. HOW DOES THIS: "What if God would ALLOW evil to exist in the world for some greater good? God is powerful so He can bring good out of evil?" IMPLY THIS: "Then God is not All-Powerful. This is very clear ? "Sorry, my friend. The BOP is on you. The voters will vote, however." Okay, the BOP is on the person making the claim to knowledge. As far as the existence of God goes, the BOP is on me. However as far as premise 5 from above goes, since it is claim to knowledge, it is on you. You provide no reason to accept premise 5 and instead shift the BOP which is a fallacy. "Dmot's case has large fallacies in it and failed to rebut my rebuttals. This is why my round is short." Well, unlike your arguments, mine are still lengthy. This is because I care to actually find truth and I use arguments to do that. If you are content with simply accusing me of fallacies, so be it.