God exists.

I'll address Pro's philosophical argument first, then his points about miracles and NDEs.PhilosophyPro says that the universe must have had a cause, because it began to exist during the Big Bang. However, the cause of the Big Bang may have been a prior state of the universe. The Big Bang was just a big explosion (or more accurately, an expansion) that happened 14 billion years ago - there's no reason why something like that couldn't have a cause in some prior physical event. Nothing Pro has said rules this out. Moreover, even if the universe had a cause, nothing Pro has said implies that the cause of the universe had to be God. There is no reason why a being that created the universe would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, or a person. Therefore, none of the divine attributes are demonstrated by this philosophical argument.Hume on MiraclesPro tries to argue for the existence of God from miracles, but Hume showed that it is impossible to demonstrate the occurrence of a miracle for all practical purposes. Here is Hume's reasoning:1. We can determine whether or not to accept a given piece of testimony by considering two things: the credibility of the witness and the intrinsic likelihood of the claim that the witness is making.2. A law of nature is a maximally strong induction from past experience.3. A miracle is a claim that contradicts a law of nature.4. Therefore, a miracle is a claim that contradicts a maximally strong induction from past experience. (from 2 and 3)5. But induction from past experience is the only means we have of evaluating the intrinsic likelihood of an event.6. Therefore, miracles have a very low intrinsic likelihood. (from 4 and 5)7. In practice, the credibility of a witness will never be sufficiently high as to equal or outweigh such a low intrinsic likelihood. There are five reasons for thinking this: (a) miracles are never testified to by sufficiently many people with spotless reputations, excellent educations, and a lot to lose in the event that they are caught lying; (b) people have a tendency to like believing in strange things like miracles and UFOs; (c) miracles usually come from backward nations; (d) the miracles of different religions cancel each other out; and (e) in religious communities, credulity is thought to be a good thing, so they encourage each other to believe more and more in the miracles of their religion.8. Therefore, in practice, we should always reject miraculous claims. (from 1, 6 and 7)Mackie on MiraclesJ. L. Mackie updated Hume's reasoning as follows:1. To establish that a miracle occurred, it is necessary to establish both that the event took place and that it violated the laws of nature.2. Showing that an event violates the laws of nature is a strong reason to think that the event did not occur.3. Showing that an event occurred is a strong reason to think that it did not violate the laws of nature.4. Therefore, the atheist will always be able to object to the argument from miracles by arguing either that the event must not have occurred or that the event must not have violated the laws of nature. (Which one we use will depend on the specific alleged miracle under discussion - if the miracle is not well supported, then the former tactic is stronger, and if the miracle is well supported, then the latter tactic is stronger.)5. Therefore, in practice, the theist will never be able to establish that a miracle occurred.Mackie notes that this reasoning even applies to miracles which one has witnessed for oneself. The miracle that you have witness might not really have occurred, since you might have misperceived something, been tricked by a magician, or deluded yourself about what you saw over a period of time. Alternatively, the event you witness might have occurred in accordance with the laws of nature after all.So much for the argument from miracles.Near Death ExperiencesThe objections of Hume and Mackie to the argument from miracles also apply to Pro's argument from NDEs. It will always be more likely that someone is lying or mistaken, or that the event was actually a natural occurrence, than that a genuinely supernatural event has occurred.I would add that NDEs are actually irrelevant to the existence of God. There is no logical connection between these experiences and the alleged existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good person.