There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

God Exists Because the Inverse is Mathematically Impossible Pro uses numbers and calculations derived from unreliable creationist websites to suggest that: 1. The total number of potential configurations of the universe is unimaginably large, but there are only 10150 potential configurations in which God does not feature.2. The probability of a configuration that supports life unimaginably low.3. Therefore, the probability of a universe that supports life, and in which God does not feature, is essentially zero, i.e. such a universe is “impossible.”4. Since the universe supports life, God must feature in it. I agree that the total number of potential configurations is unimaginably large. However, the number of potential configurations in which God features cannot be greater than the number of potential configurations in which he does not feature, because there can only be two versions of any given configuration: Configuration X or Configuration X+God. In this case, by Pros calculations, the probability of a universe that supports life, and in which God does feature, is the same as the probability of said universe in which God does not feature. That is, essentially zero i.e. such a universe is “impossible”. This is the best case scenario for Pro. Unfortunately for Pro, he cannot even argue for his best case scenario. By Pro’s reasoning, God does not exist if the number of potential configurations in which God does not feature = the total number of potential configurations. Therefore, Pro must claim that the total number of potential configurations is greater (by at least one) than the number of potential configurations in which God does not exist (and indeed Pro does make this claim). For this claim to be true, God must exist, since the existence of God is the only thing that could result in the total number of potential configurations being greater than the number of potential configurations in which God does not exist. Therefore, Pro must assume the existence of God in order to show that there is even a possibility that God exists. This is clearly not logical. I don’t feel that I need to go much further by addressing Pro’s arguments about the probability of a universe that supports life. I have already made those arguments redundant. However, I am willing to address that argument in the next round if Pro insists that I do so. God Exists Because Multiple People Have Witnessed Him Pro is scraping the bottom of the barrel by relying on anecdotes. People “see” and “witness” all kinds of unrealistic things all the time. I can close my eyes right now and “witness” a pink elephant that is larger than Earth. You can “see” this elephant too if you want. In fact, you probably did see it when you read the third sentence of this paragraph. Does that mean the elephant is real? The answer is, of course, no. But what if every single person in the world “saw” a pink elephant that is larger than Earth, and then subsequently claimed that they were not just imagining things? Does this give any weight to the claim that a pink elephant larger than Earth exists? No. To paraphrase you, Pro: to rule in the testimonies of everyone who has “seen” God as not imagining things is the same as telling everyone on Earth that the blue sky is an illusion because you see it green. God Exists Because the Universe Persists Pro is basically saying that the laws of physics can only stay constant over time if God keeps them constant. In other words, if God does not keep the laws constant, then they would change on their own accord. He claims this is the case because the laws of physics “only apply to an exact point in time”. Pro, what evidence do you have to support this claim? The laws of physics are called laws for a reason: they do not apply only at certain times; they apply all of the time. And if you want to claim that they only apply all of the time because God keeps them constant, then you must explain why the laws of physics would constantly change if God did not prevent them from changing. God Must Have Been the First Cause Even if every cause does not have a cause, Pro must still explain why God is not caused. Since Pro states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, Pro must claim that God did not being to exist i.e. that God has always existed. In making this claim, Pro is violating Occam's razor, since one could save an unnecessary step by saying that the universe has always existed (though perhaps not in its current form if we want to consider what existed before the Big Bang). Conclusion Pro has not provided any logical argument for the existence of God. It is not logical to try to show that God exists by assuming God exists. It is not logical that God exists because people claim to have “seen” God. It is not logical that the laws of physics can only stay constant if God exists. Finally, it is not logical that God but not the universe would be exempt from requiring a cause.