Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

I will respond to Con's inital argument then move on to defending my own.Rebuttal 1: Zero Total EngeryMy opponent does not address my refutation from Round 3, what-so-ever here. So I extend it across as I showed that this theory cannot be true, because if it was there would be no more exspansion of the universe as we would have come to a complete halt and the BGV effect would not exist, but to make matters worse is that my opponent even conceded that this existed in Round 2, meaning that he indirectly admits that the universe is still exspanding and thus the Zero Total Energy theory is incorrect. This is through the fact that if the matter in the universe equalled the gravity then there would be no growth and we would be moving toward a single point in the universe back to a singlularity and the Big Crunch. Due to this being incorrect we can see that this theory is bunk not to mention all the other arguments that my opponent has dropped in his last round from my refutations. We can see that the Creator of the universe exists without time and space as I'll get into later in my Mind argument when I get to that later in my round. I would also like to note that this theory doesn't negate what-so-ever the existance of God. If my opponent wins this argument, somehow, then we can see that all it does is show that it came from the Big Bang. Of Which I believe that God caused the Big Bang and hence the universe. Contention 1: Modal Ontological Argument Ontological ArgumentMy opponent did not refute the argument here what-so-ever, but simply resorted to a simple refusing to acknowledge my argument. This argument will continue to stand until it is properly refuted by my opponent as shown in the pyramid bellow. For the sake of arguing though I will continue to address my opponent's argument here. My opponent's only response here is that the first Premise can be proven without evidence. What is the argument behind that? My opponent has simply used the Contradiction section on the above pryamind and his statement should be discarded as such. Anslem's Ontological ArgumentPossible Worlds is also self explanitory. PW is simple in all other worlds it would be true. [1] Which I have shown and my opponent has dropped, however we can see that the Greatest Possible Being is self explanitory and doesn't exactly need an explination within itself as I have shown and it was dropped that God is A priori and A posteriori. So what does this drop mean? It shows that my statement on the sole fact that my opponent dropped it that it is true and empiracal. Not to mention that we don't need evidence for this and the fact that A priori was dropped this actually negates his own argument in having me have to prove myself as this now shifts the BOP to more of my opponent. Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological ArgumentI will address my opponent's 2 step fallacy.1. My opponent makes a random circle here. We can see that since God is transcendent then he doesn't interfear with Space-time, hence forth, God has always existed in this case and beginning to exist cannot affect something that is unaffected by Space-time. 2. I've actually explained this argument in my Monoistic Idealism by showing that God is transcendent and since he is unaffected by Space-time he is unaffected by time and hence has always existed. Monoistic IdealismP1 Mind is mentalP2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mentalC1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mentalP3 Mind interacts with realityC2 Reality is mentalP1 was conceeded as true. My opponent states that the Mind cannot interact with reality, but let's take an interesting scenrio for a minute. Since it's getting close to Halloween I'll use a like example. Let's say you clone yourself. I don't mean just a twin, but everything like you in everyway, but it will be unable to have a consciousness. This is known as a zombie (excluding the decay and rotting corpse). We can see that it looks like you, talks like you, and it Physically like you, BUT it doesn't have the mind and hence not aware. Thus we can see that the mind is able to interact with reality, because if it wouldn't then we would all be mindless zombies like my opponent's clone in this example. Thus P2 is correct.Thus Conclusion 1 is true. Now on to Solipsism. My opponent accepts this argument as true though with one dispute, but I have already disproven it previously and hence my argument on Solipsism supporting God's existance stands with my opponent's concession. Con then moves on to say that since the Brain affects your feelings and hence the mind isn't responsable and false. We must first observe that if these expirences where all physical that I would be able to view them in third person, but since I'm not able to do such a thing then we can see that these expierences aren't physical. We can see the very fact that all physical expierences are in third person, but since there are first person expierences we must also be able to expierence that are not purely physical.Sources1. ( http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de...)