God exists.

As I said to begin with, the default definition for this debate is that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good person. My opponent did not ask me to approve his alternative definition, as I stipulated in round 1, so the default definition is the one that applies to this debate. My opponent has presented no arguments for this definition and has argued that it is impossible, so I should be judged the winner of the debate. The burden of proof principle says that every claim must be supported by arguments or evidence. This is my response to my opponent's claim that I need to refute the existence of the God of classical theism, Spinoza's god, etc. Until he presents some reason to take these claims seriously, I can dismiss them under the burden of proof principle. That's how debates work. I don't have to hunt down every argument for God in the history of philosophy to win the debate, I just have to respond to the arguments presented. On the other hand, if it's acceptable to just gesture at a bunch of books that argue for your view, I can refer to the work of Michael Martin, Graham Oppy, Herman Philipse, and Jordan Howard Sobel. There are dozens of books that argue for atheism, so I don't think my opponent wants to say that just mentioning someone who disagrees with him is sufficient to give him an obligation to refute all of that person's work. Let's go by the arguments and evidence, not name dropping. My opponent accuses me of arguing from ignorance and committing the black swan fallacy, but I am really just applying the burden of proof principle. If you assert something, such as that there is a God, you need to give arguments or evidence for it. In addition, I stipulated in round 1 that my opponent automatically accepts the burden of proof by accepting the debate. He says that we can know that things we've never seen humans create are designed, like beaver dams and beehives, but I think this is just nitpicking rather than addressing the point of the objection. We know that beavers and bees create dams and hives because we have seen them do so. We have never seen a divine intelligence create a universe. The fine tuning argument assumes that an intelligence would be likely to want to create a universe with life, which there is no reason to believe. We have no objective way of figuring out what a god would be likely to want in a universe. This argument is anthropomorphic - projecting the fact that humans subjectively like life onto a god who would necessarily be a very different type of being. So even if the particular values of the constants that we have are unlikely (although by what standard can we objectively assert that?), the fact that these constants gave rise to life is no reason to think a god caused them. We have no idea what a god would be likely to cause as opposed to blind natural processes. This is why my opponent's analogy to five royal flushes is flawed: we know that humans want to get five royal flushes, but we don't know that gods want a universe with life. As I said, time is defined in terms of the universe in physics, so it did not exist prior to the universe by definition. I am not saying it could not conceivably have been created by a timeless God. I can imagine all sorts of things that "might" have caused time or the universe. My contention, rather, is that there is no reason to believe that God caused the universe or time. My opponent implies that the God and/or the supernatural must exist because a lot of people believe in it. I think this is clearly a weak argument. Matters of truth in philosophy are not settled by a poll, they are settled by evidence and arguments, which my opponent has failed to provide. To sum up, my opponent has argued against the coherence of the definition of God that applies to this debate and failed to provide any compelling reason to believe in God. Therefore, I should be judged the winner.