God exists.

I'll go over the definition and my opponent's argument, then discuss judging in the conclusion.1. The Definition of GodMy opponent says, " Speaking to someone isn't sufficient for me to have power over them; previous authority must have decayed to an extent that they follow me or I must be in a position of authority which commands others in the exercise of power." However, these are physical developments. Previous authority decaying, or a given person rising to a position of authority over others, will involve countless physical actions. For example, if you shot the previous leader, the bullet leaving the gun is a physical event. If you were elected to take their place, then the casting and counting of the ballots were physical events. And so on.He brings up the American Dream again, which is puzzling since I already addressed this example. Ideas like the American Dream require a physical substrate within the physical universe - the brain. All ideas and other conscious states within our experience require a physical brain. Therefore, an idea, other conscious state, or consciousness in general, is not a serious candidate for the creator of the physical universe. It would need a physical brain, which means there would already be a physical universe by definition.Power is physical, and always depends on the physical world. The creator of the physical universe could not be a power. My opponent has failed to identify a non-physical sense of the word "power" that could apply to the creator the universe, so he has failed to meet requirement 1, presenting a coherent definition of God.2. The Case for God's ExistenceMy opponent has presented a deductive argument with eight premises, P1-P8. When evaluating this argument, it is critical to keep two things in mind: (a) From Round 1, he agreed when accepting this debate that the burden of proof is on him. I can present evidence to undermine his premises, but that is icing on the cake, not an obligation of mine.(b) It is a basic principle of critical thinking that the conclusion of a deductive argument cannot be more certain than the least certain premise that it depends on, because it requires every premise in the deduction to be true. However, it can be less certain than the least certain premise it depends on, provided that more than one premise of the argument is less than certain.Therefore, if any one premise of his argument is not established to be more likely than not to be true, I automatically win, because he has not met his burden of proof. However, even if every premise of his argument is more likely than not to be true, the cumulative uncertainty of the premises may still render the conclusion less than probable. For example, even if every premise of his argument has a probability of 75%, the probability of the conclusion is 0.75 multiplied by itself eight times, which is only about 10%.Now, to the argument (which is basically William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument).P1 The universe has a beginning My opponent clearly has not shown that this premise is more likely than not to be true. He has not presented any evidence against the claim that the Big Bang was caused by a prior state of the universe - as far as the evidence presented in this debate, there is no way of deciding against that possibility and in favor the one he has argued for (a god). This alone is enough to overthrow his argument.However, I have also argued repeatedly that there is no scenario on which the universe had a beginning - regardless of whether the universe has existed for an infinite period of time or a finite period. I refer you to my previous posts for this argument. If you agree with me about this, then (a) the probability of this premise is 0% by definition and the argument fails, and (b) the causal principle my opponent's entire argument depends on does not apply to the universe.In addition, there is the Big Crunch theory, which states that the universe has existed forever. The Big Crunch theory is not the theory best supported by evidence at present, but it might realistically be true. Any probability that this theory has, or any probability that any other cosmological model has, or any lack of confidence we have in our ability to accurately model the universe's beginning billions of years in the past at all (and what a debatable issue!), goes to undermine my opponent's case.P2 Everything with a beginning, had some sufficient power to cause it This principle is unjustified, and there is no evidence for it. The only principle we have evidence for is "everything with a physical beginning had a sufficient physical power to create it." This is the only principle that is supported by our experience - my opponent's principle, which is intended to support a non-physical cause, is based on no evidence. (If he refers to his arguments from Nietzsche's concept of power and the American Dream, see my discussion above. Neither of these analogies help support the existence of a god.)P3 No cause is its direct effect subject to an A-theory view of time Most physicists support the B theory of time. I don't personally have a detailed knowledge of the debate, but if the physicists are right about this then my opponent's argument fails. So, any authority that the physicists have goes to undermine this premise, and therefore my opponent's argument is rendered even less certain.C2 (P4, P5) A deist god semantically equates to the sufficient power that caused the universe My opponent himself admits that "the universe could potentially have been caused by something that is not-god." He is clearly correct that this is possible, and he has presented no evidence to rule out the possibility. This undermines his argument.3. ConclusionThe main thing I want you to keep in mind when judging this is that my opponent has the burden of proof, and his case depends on a single deductive argument. Therefore, I only need one cogent objection to my opponent's case to win the debate. I'll spell this out.Requirement 1: If you think my objection to the coherence of my opponent's definition is cogent, then you must vote in my favor.Requirement 2: There are two ways I could win on this requirement. First, if you think I have shown that any single premise my opponent's case depends on is not more likely than not to be true, then you must vote in my favor. Secondly, you might think that although each individual premise is probable, my objections "nickel and dime" my opponent's case such that the conclusion he is deducing has not been shown to be more likely than not to be true. (See section 2 in this post for elaboration.)