Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

To clarify to my opponent and the voters, one can see that the rules do state that the refutations are permitted in that round while he stated that he addressed all of them except the TA argument I took him at his word for that, so I appologize for any misunderstanding there was there. Let's not hold that against us and move on in this debate. Teleology ArgumentMy opponent almost argues exactly for me on this first part for the second premise. We can see here that the fact of it's utter design in nature and its perfect symmetry shows that there is a unique design behind this object. We can see the fact that he also conceded to the fact that there was a designer, but he counterd stating that nature does this and thus there's no God. This is false as we can see that due to the fact that there's a purpose here, of which my opponent did not refute. Concidering that this is now the final round we can see that you MUST hold this drop against my opponent as the sole fact that it has a purpose the fact of Teleogy is that all things have a purpose and that purpose is to God. The fact that this was dropped by my opponent has won me this argument as it shows that since things serve God, teleology, that God exists. Zero Net EnergyI appologize here as since my opponent fused the two together here that I will have to address the two together, but I will try to stay down the flow of the debate. We don't officially know this, that that my opponent's premise here can be true. Take for example a singularity. In the universe there are only two places where they could have been found; the Big Bang and Black Holes. Of which due to Hawking Radiation the Black Hole evaporates and disappears. Who's to say that the Universe as we know isn't just an offset of a Black Hole? If that would be true than my opponent's theory is false. [1] This would conflict with my opponent's, but not mine as in my case it would still show creation in a form, but for my opponent there was energy before the Big Bang and thus so we can see that the Zero Net Energy theory would be false. As shown earlier I argued that God is transcendent meaning that he is unaffected by Spacetime and thus my opponent's argument still doesn't affect the existance of God in this case. My opponent wishes for me to argue for a higher demention, but I have been arguing for one the entire time, but yet he has seen to be ignoring it. It is that of Space-Time which some tend to concider a 4th demention where gravity can be seen to affect many things. That is why I have spent much of my time arguing that God is transcendent and outside of Spacetime which is the demention of which gravity is seen and has a dramatic impact on things. View the graph bellow for more details. s://encrypted-tbn1. gstatic. com. .. ; alt="" />Why it is true that the universe expanded from a small point massively which is something I agree which, but it is the later portion that we disagree on. We can still see that there is an issue with what my opponent is arguing here and it is that of the universe here. If we look at the theory we can see that the universe has no room for growth and it shows that the universe has reached it's climax point. We can agree the view of Red-Shifts as I even provided a similiar argument in Round 2 and in Round 4 on the matter, but yet my opponent seems to be misinterperating the argument. The red shifts show exspansion in the universe and under my opponent's argumentation we shouldn't see any shifts. He then argues that there's still expansion as + is the growth, but this is also false. We can see that the universe will eventually have all matter equal to the gravity and will begin to contract back to the singularity. [2] This itself disproves my opponent's argument as his shows constant growth while that is completely false. We can see that it will tapper off and begin to decline. I have provided a Gif to demonstrate. s://upload. wikimedia. org. .. ; alt="" />Well there's a few things wrong with my opponent's rebuttal here. We can see that, as argued several times before, God is transcendent meaning that he exists outside of spacetime. Thus it is completely explinative that this is completely possible. We can also see if we use the S5 argument of which my opponent has completely casted aside then we can see that with this occuring we can see that this is simply true. [3]MOAThough what my opponent may say about this thing may be true, my opponent has committed the strawman fallacy here and instead of attacking the actually argument has instead argued around it. We can see that with his "flagoiganberry" that he simply conceding to the argument that God exists by shows it's usefulness. Which is a concession of this argument. I extend across all other arguments due to my opponent running out of characters. With that I thank you and please Vote Pro! Sources1. Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes. London: Bantam, 1988. Print.2. Ellis, George F. R. , R. Maartens, and M. A. H. MacCallum. Relativistic Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. 146–47. Print.3. Marenbon, M. , Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.