God exists.

My opponent says I have not met my burden of proof by not providing evidence for an OOO (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) deity. This is was never my position in the first place due it's mutually contradictory nature making its very existence impossible. It would be like trying to argue for 4 sided triangles, married bachelors, and circular squares. Honestly, that would be an interesting debate, trying to defend the undefendable. That is why I didn't accept this definition since my opponent might as well win by default. However, if a deity did exist, no matter if it was OOO, it would still have major practical and religious significance. Whoever found this out with relative certainty would win a Nobel Prize. But we aren't dealing with certainty, we are dealing with probability. What is the more likely to be truth, atheism or theism? I am arguing for theism of course. For my opponent to win, he must argue against not only an OOO God, he must argue against the God of classical theism, Spinoza's god, a deistic God, polytheism, etc. The God of Christianity isn't the only potential God available. My opponent personally identifies as an Atheist. Upon most traditional definitions, this must mean that he believes that it is more reasonable to not believe in any gods than to in fact believe. He can't merely disbelieve in the God of Christianity, he must disbelieve in the existence of all the other thousands of Gods. Unless my opponent is an agnostic atheist (aka weak atheism) or believes in the null hypothesis, he must prove that all other Gods do not exist. If he only disbelieves in the God of Christianity he is then a non-Christian, not an atheist. This would be a false dichotomy since Christianity and Atheism aren't the only options. He can't merely prove that gods would be quite unpleasant, he must prove that they don't exist.His position may possibly suffer from being an argument from ignorance, saying that Atheism is true since there is no proof Theism is true. If he does in fact say, there are no Gods, then the burden of proof is on him to prove this. His position may also suffer from the Black Swan Fallacy, saying that there are not any Gods since we have never seen any. But as one could possibly have never seen a black swan, one could very well could possibly never seen a God. My opponent will more likely than not come up with a reductio ad absurdum, such as comparing God to unicorns or celestial teapots. First off, saying that God is about as likely as Santa Clause is never a good way to convince someone, though some atheists have said there is more evidence for Santa Clause. Second off, a reductio ad absurdum only holds if the law of excluded middle holds, which it doesn't under a dichotomy of Atheism and Christianity. My opponent also doesn't counter any of the proposed solutions to his possible objections. Until he does, they are still standing.He also proposed that we understand that something is designed due to comparing it things made by humans. This isn't necessarily true, for example, take beaver dams and bee hives. We knew they were, for a lack of a better term designed by animals well before we ever made man made dams or artificial beehives. We also know that we can create artificial universes on the computer using some fancy science and programming. This also completely ignores the premises the Fine Tuning Argument. To go back to the Royal Flush example, what is more likely? For 5 royal flushes to appear completely randomly, or that someone is cheating. It is, in fact, true, that it may have come about by chance, but one must ask what are the chances of that?My opponent has also proposed that the very concept of time before the creation of the universe is completely nonsensical. How does he, in fact, know that time started with the universe. Or nevermind that, why couldn't it be created by a timeless deity. Next, most people have believed in Gods and the supernatural. What evidence do you have that all of them are wrong? Would the Gospel writers and others die for something they knew were a lie?