It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

Thanks to my opponent for debating this topic with me. As this is the last round, I will try to keep it short and simple for the readers and voters. "You say God has no cause, and then say that in order for something to exist it must have a cause. You in your own words are proving God to be nothing but a paradox." I am sorry if I was not clear, but I do believe I stated that, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." I never said that "everything must have a cause" as you falsely accused me of saying. You stated that you believe in an eternal universe, but I have already shown that to be logically incoherent, because an actual infinite number things is impossible in reality. Until you can prove that an actual infinite amount of things can occur in the actual world, or find some other way around the problem, I cannot say anything more about your claim because you did not justify it in any way. "Even if there was a first cause, how is this a proof of a god? The only characteristic such a "god" would have is that it was the "uncaused cause" of everything else. You can't say anything about whether it still exists, is intelligent, cares about humanity,or any other purported characteristic of the kinds of gods worshiped by theists." You are close to being correct with this statement. I have shown that the cause would have to be: immaterial, personal, powerful, and exist outside of space and time. You did not refute that in any way so I have to assume you agree with it. You are totally correct when you say this argument does not show the creator of the universe cares about humanity. The only problem is I never tried to make this argument say that. My second argument was the critical one and also addresses that issue. "The law of cause & effect is described as: 'when an effect is caused, the cause must occur first.' It is a temporal rule defining the terms cause and effect." I totally disagree that causality is a temporal relationship. There are many times when simultaneous causation occur. William Lane Craig gives an example of a heavy ball resting on a pillow [1]. The ball would cause a depression in the pillow. The ball and the pillow could have existed from eternity, so that the ball was always on the pillow. It is false that the cause has to exist temporally prior to the effect. They can be simultaneous. If you would like more clarity please watch the video I put as a footnote because I'm sure Dr. Craig can explain it better than I can. I hope that I did a good enough job that you can understand it. "God is only one large mess of contradicting characteristics. Every thing whose concept is contradictory does not exist. The concept of God is contradictory. Therefore, God does not exist." This is an unjustified claim so there is nothing for me to refute. My opponent merely asserted that God was contradictory, but did not give us any reason to think so. Conclusion: My opponent has misunderstood the KCA as meaning "everything that exists has a cause" when the argument states "everything that begins to exist has a cause." The bigger part to this debate was the ontological argument because the conclusion of that argument is that a Maximally Great Being (God) exists, which is the resolution to the debate. My opponent did not even attempt to refute the premises, nor the conclusion. So as much as I doubt she does, I am forced to believe that she agrees with me that a maximally great being exists. I want to thank my opponent for her taking time out of her week to debate this with me as well as all the readers and voters for their time. Please vote honestly for whoever you think won, whether that be myself or my worthy opponent. Thank you [1]http://www.youtube.com...