God exists

R1) Fine tuning On God's necessityCon attempts to work around the definitions provided. They violated rule 3 since Con agreed that the definition of God is necessary and therefore it is a violation of rules that Con is attempting to change this definition. If you do not like the definition, you should not have accepted the debate. Furthermore, Con provides a ridicolous analogy to a dragon. The argument has no substance. A dragon is a contingent being beyond a shadow of doubt due to the fact that it is contingent on the intercourse of its parents (law of biogenesis) which entails an external explanation and contingency. Furthermore, The dragon is not necessary and is not eternal since it came into existence at a definite point in the past (birth).On the interdependency of constantsCon provides one example then clinges on to it to the whole debate then somehow reasons that a large amount of constants thus are interdependent. The constants of this universe are determined by their own euations. Most of these are determined by simple equations that do not include any other constants. For example, Boltzmann constant, Planck's constant, Gravitational constant, Hubble's constant, etc. Most literally have no relation with others and can even not exist without affecting others[1] The only ones that do is Con's example, Gravitational coupling constant and to a smaller extent, the cosmological constant. Some of the examples of fine tuning are not even constants but rather situations like the probability that intial universe would have been in a low entropy state which is 1 in 10^10^123. [2] To demonstrate how unlikely that is, it is like blindfolding a man and putting him in a room with a 103 TRILLION coins but taking one coin and painting it red .., The possibility of the blindfolded man pulling out the red coin out of all those trillions is the same as the universe having an intial state of low entropy. That is only ONE example. Multiply those by unlikely odds of other situations by the other unlikely constants and you will understand why the universe coming by chance hypothesis is laughable.Multiverse Again Con is being dishonest and redefines occam's razor. Occam's razor says word-for-word "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". One designer entity is simpler and more likely than infinite unaccounted-for unnecessary entities (universes within a multiverse). Con also says that is begging the question to ask who created the infinitude of universes in the multiverse. However, according to the principle of sufficient reason, everything has an explanation whether in its necessity (God, numbers, shapes) or in its contingency (multiverse, this universe, Con, zebras). The multiverse is changeable (new universes like our own is born, some recollapse) and it is not eternal (since new universes are born) thus the multiverse needs an external explanation. Moreover, what created the complex entity that supposedly shoots out universes? Is that entity necessary like God or is that necessary contingent and requires an external explanation in a necessary being like God? Who fine-tuned the constants of those universes to even allow them to exist? Who fine tuned their cosmological constant and their gravitational constant to even allow them to exist? If the machine or complex entity hvs been shooting out universes for a past-eternity, does it not suffer from infinite regress too? Multiverse creates more questions than answers which is against Occam's razor.Cyclical universesCon conceeded this point.On infinite regress.Con confuses infinite sets with converging infinities. The example that Con provided is a convereging infinity that does last forever and therefore does take an infinite amount of time. [3] The answer is actually not exactly 2 (it is rounded to 2). It is dependent on when the mathematician decides to stop in the series (since the series is infinite with no end, you can go all the way to 1/99999..). R2) OntologicalOn the first premise Con notes that none of his contradictions have been debunked which is obviously not the case. He reuses the already refuted the omnipotence paradox. I have already noted multiple times. God has infinite power. He can create a boulder as heavy as infinity and he would still be able to lift it. He has infinite power to do what he wants. The uestion is designed to be logically incoherent. THe uestion presumes that God is omnipotent (can build a boulder so heavy) and he is not omnipotent at the same time (he can not lift it). The question in itself is a contradiction and makes no sense. Its like asking can God toad a 9, all of these are desperate non-sensical questions. Con has dropped the other supposed contradictions when he realized they do not make sense. On the third premise and the making propertiesThe properties provided in the links are well-accepted within philosophical academia. You would have to debunk 5,000 years of philosophy first. However, good is greater than evil since evil creates destruction and corruption and because good creates prosperity. Necessity is greater than contingency because it is better to have absolute and authoritative existence that is not limited by anything (necessity) rather than to be limited or determined by outside greater factors or explanations (contingency). It is better if you are the greater being rather than to have someone or something else greater than you dictate whether or not you are even allowed to exist.On Con's childish hamster analogyCon seems to have skipped over my rebuttal. God is maximally great and the hamster is not maximally great since it is contingent. The agreed upon definition declares that God is omnimaximal and thus maximally great. If Con had problems with the definitions, he can not sneak them in at the end of the debate. Con should have not accepted the debate if they did not like the definition. The ontological argument is designed to prove that MGB exists whether you wanna call it hamster or God.R3) KalamOn inductive reasoning and the universe obeying its own lawsCon states that inductive reasoning has its limits but I have demonstrated that inductive reasoning applies to the parts (closed systems within the universe) and to the whole (the heat death of the universe). Con just seems to say that it has its limits but does not refute the evidence. On quantum mechanicsHere Con demonstrates that they are SO ignorant on the subject of quantum mechanics. Con does not even read his own source which explictly says that "quantum fluctuations are the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space". THey are energy within space. Con is right that vacuum is what you get after removing all of matter, energy, radiation, particles, photons from space but what they found is that there is a background energy that they can not remove called uatum vacuum energy and it actually weighs something after removing all possible matter and energy. This background vacuum energy fluctuates and produces virtual particles. Fluctuating energy producing virtual particles is not nothing, Con. Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe [4]. This is a catch 22. You are using something within the universe to account for the origin of the universe. This energy is what fluctuates and not nothing. Again, I do not blame Con. They might be just misinformed or oblivious about this. If something from nothing would have happened, why did it only happen fourteen billion years ago, why not 5 minutes ago? I mean it is NO THING so there is nothing that is holding it back.Cyclical universesCon conceedes.BGV theoremBGV theorem is a theorem conducted by physicists Borde, Guth and Vilenkin which proves that cyclical universes are way too unstable to even exist and they are impossible to exist because once maximum entropy has been reached (which leads to big crunch, there is no reverse so no new big bangs and thus, can not account for fine tuning since they do not exist. It proves that this universe must have had a definite space-time beginning, even within a multiverse. Read the links provided in the previous rounds.R4) Miscellaneous Evil Con says that most disasters are natural but I have already refuted that in my previous rounds by saying that God is testing the faith and patience of the victims. actually, alot of natural disasters are mankind's fault, for example, Earthquakes are caused by fracking. Con presupposes that since God is testing us that he is gaining knowledge and thus is not omniscient. The point of the test is to benefit the test-taker and not the test-maker. For example, what benefit does your teacher have when she makes a test .. nothing. You are the one who learns. In this case, the test-takers generally gain a greater strength in their patience and faith and personal experience with God. Con presupposes that if God created us then he is responsible for our faults. I ask them if their parents would go to jail if they commited a felony because their parents created them and is thus responsible.Conclusion The contingency argument goes unchallenged, Con provides feeble rebuttals which have been disproven over and over and half-defends my rebuttals (they only defend my rebuttals on the problem of evil and conceedes his/her other arguments). Infinite regress rebuttal has not been disproven.1- Occam's razor and infinite regress and accounting for fine tuning and origin of infiniy of universes refute multiverse and there are only 3 examples of interdependency2- agreed definition of necessary and "great-making properties" are fullest extent to MGB3- Heat death of the universe (inductive applies to the whole as well) + the evidence provided for P1 are metaphysical principles, not physical nor natural4- BGV theorem and infinite regress and Occam's razor5- Free will because if God controlled the outcomes of the test then there is no point6- God can do whatever he wants but what he wants is determined by his nature. He can make a boulder as heavy as infinity but he would still be able to lift it7- If you are not certain, then God is possible proving P1 in Ontological