God does not exist.

Ave.I intend no offense to Con, but either he’s reading my argument poorly, or he didn’t read it at all. He claims that I didn’t provide an alternative definition of god, when I stated this alternative definition two times during my last round! Here are quotes from my last round:The only way for omnipotence to make any sense is if we define it as ‘’being able to do everything that is logically possible".Omnipotence is the ability to do everything that is logically possibleSo Con’s claim is proven false. Furthermore, my argument against omnipotence being defined as ‘’the ability to do everything’’ was not that the definition was a layman’s definition, as Con says. That was just an observation that came after my argument. The argument I gave was this:If omnipotence was the ability to do everything, then paradoxes like the paradox of the stone would refute the existence of god. This familiar paradox asks ‘’Can god create a stone so heavy, he can’t lift it?‘’. To answer this paradox, academic theists such as Craig and Swinburne say that god can do everything that’s logically possible, so there’s no problem if god can’t create a stone he can’t lift, as such a task is logically impossible. The only way for omnipotence to make any sense is if we define it as ‘’being able to do everything that is logically possible". If we define omnipotence as Con defined it, then there’s no way to solve the paradox of the stone. This argument went ignored. Defining omnipotence as the ability to do everything is just pulling yourself down by your own bootstraps, because the stone paradox refutes it. The definition I offered for omnipotence in the last round has no such refutation or problem. It makes more sense to use mine over Con’s. If Con’s definition is true, then all he’s done is undermine his own case, because the stone paradox would apply. He can accept my definition, or he can destroy the possibility of omnipotence by using his own. Either way benefits my case.Con further misrepresents the arguments I presented. I did not, at any point in the debate, say that time did not have a cause. Where he does he get this from? I said that since every state of time is half-open, a first state of time cannot exist. This does not entail time not having a cause. This only entails two propositions. The first proposition is that there is no first state of time for god to create, so god doesn't exist. The second proposition that every state of time is caused by a previous state of time, with no state of time that is not preceded by another state of time. If every state of time has a previous state of time, then you have a causal explanation of time itself, without any god.Con said that god exists outside of logic, so he is not bound to do only logical things. I think this is just a tauology. According to Con, being outside of logic entails not being bound to do only logical things. Simply, being outside of logic = not being bound to do only logical things. This means that Con's argument can be reformulated as 'God is not bound to do logical things, so he is not bound to do only logical things".But let's say I'm wrong. Let's say god really is outside of logic, so he can do everything. This entails that god does not exist because of the stone paradox. If god can create a stone he can't lift, then there's something he can't lift, so he can't do everything. If god can't create a stone that he can't lift, then god cannot do everything, because he cannot create that stone. So even if I'm wrong, Con's idea of omnipotence is disproven by the, as of yet, unanswered paradox.Con's representation of my second argument is wrong. I'm saying that, if god made the universe, it would have a 100% chance of coming into being. It doesn't have a 100% chance of coming into being. It has a 95% chance. Therefore, god does not exist. Nothing Con said about my second round argument was accurate.Con said that there is no evidence of simultaneous causation. I showed that denying simultaneous causation is impossible for anyone who uses the KCA. I didn’t see Con respond to this. In fact, he seems to agree that simultaneous causation is possible, because he says that I did a wonderful job of proving it. Anyways, I presented four examples of simultaneous causation, and linked to an article which gives many more. None of these examples were disproven by Con in the last round, and he didn't even try to. Instead, he dismissed them based on a false understanding of what simultaneous causation is. Simultaneous causation is not a cause when cause leads to effect, and effect leads to cause. That's something similar to what's called 'reverse causation', and that's not what my argument is. The definition of simultaneous causation, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (link in my earlier round), is when cause and effect happen at the same time. There is no warrant to Con's definition of simultaneous causation.Con said that “In logic, everything must have a cause. This is the foundation for why this argument falls”. I’m sorry if this offends, but this is absurd. How am I suggesting that there is no cause? Does the 'causation' in 'simultaneous causation' not mean anything to Con? What does he suppose the word 'causation' means in this context? The cause of Atom A is Atom B, the cause of Atom B is Atom C, and the cause of Atom C is Atom A, and they all cause each other instantaneously. Never have I talked about things without cause. I'm talking about a system having a causal explanation from itself.Con does bring up an issue that's important to address. Simultaneous causation presents us with an explanation of matter, but it doesn't necessarily show that such a thing actually happened. I think this can be solved easily. First of all, there is no evidence that god created matter, and Con has not tried to prove this in the debate. This means that there is no evidence for a personal creator of matter. Simultaneous causation can happen, it does happen, and physics shows that it happened at the Big Bang. Simultaneous causation may only be a possible explanation, but it's a possible explanation with evidence, unlike a personal creator of matter. This means that, epistemically, we should prefer simultaneous causation as an explanation of matter over god, because it has more evidence. (I shouldn't have to prove that something with more evidence is favorable over something without it.)Con said that "Until my opponent can show either how simultaneous causation can cause matter, or another probable method for the cause of matter, we must assume that our omnipotent God must've done it". This is completely false. The only thing we would assume is that there is a cause of matter that we haven't discovered, and we need to go and look for it. There is no reason to assume that god did it, and the lack of explanation does not mean he did, as I showed in the last round. Con's logic is equivalent to saying 'We don't know what the cause was, therefore the cause was god". This is rather like saying "We don't know, therefore we know". It's a non-sequitur.Con asserts that "This point has been refuted indirectly already. God can exist outside of time if he created it. Therefore, the divine creation of time was not simultaneous causation at all." This is another frustrating straw man argument from Con. I did not say, at any point in my arguments, that time was created by simultaneous causation. I said that simultaneous causation could explain matter. I never applied it to time.I don't have the space to answer C3, but Con does admit that the lack of a natural explanation does not entail god existing. Maybe if he didn't misrepresent my case, I would have room to answer.Everything Con said in this debate has fallen into two categories: factually wrong and misconceived. I think a Pro vote is the most justified vote, and I hope the audience can see that I've proved my case beyond a preponderance of the evidence.Vale.