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

Thank you for your response. "1) It is also possible that a magic banana that flies around our universe exists too. Anything is possible. " + You expanded on this further down in your argument so I will address it there. I just don't want you or anyone thinking I am skipping over it haha. "2) Yes, but a possible world is nothing more than an idea. Therefore, it is irrelevant to reality. " + I agree largely with what you said. A possible world is not reality. All it does is describe a way that reality could have been. "3) Not necessarily. You have no way to really know what god is, if it existed, so you have no way of knowing if he can be in another possible world other than your man-made idea of god. A possible world, like I pointed out, is just an idea. So far your argument has nothing to do with reality. " + Let us remember that we have defined God as the greatest conceivable being. This means that God has all the maximally excellent qualities. One of those maximally excellent qualities would be being metaphysically necessary. Premise 3 is that if God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world. It logically follows that if God is a metaphysically necessary being and he exists in some possible world, then he exists in every possible world. "4) No, this is a huge flaw. Because your idea of god exists in a fake "possible world" doesn't mean that he is in our real world. Pro even says, "Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. " +This is totally irrelevant to the 4th premise. If God exists in every possible world, then he exists in the actual world. This premise is totally uncontroversial. "5) This is basically a restatement of your 4th point. I will again state that what is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality. Even if god may have existed in a possible world, that doesn't make it any more probable that it would be in our reality. " + What is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality if we are talking about contingent things, such as unicorns. However, God is a non-contingent being. He either exists necessarily or does not exist due to impossibility. If God exists in a possible world it logically follows that we would exist in every possible world and therefore the actual world. 6+7 I have nothing to refute. "Later in Pro's argument, he talks about how if a god is possible, it must exist because he is a "maximally great" being. How do you know this? " +Well in the first round of this debate I defined God as a maximally great being. The first round was specifically for acceptance and clarification. If you had a problem with the definition of God then I would have been willing to discuss it, but it is far too late now. I know some people might take that as a loss of conduct for con because he asked to change a definition in the middle of the debate, but I ask that not be a reason to deduct him the conduct point. I don't want a good debate ruined by something stupid like that if the voting happens to be close. " I could say that my magic banana is maximally great, and then if it's possible, he exists! That is ridiculous logic. " +I was looking forward to hearing this (: A banana that is maximally great is logically incoherent. Let's think about this. A maximally great banana would have to be metaphysically necessary. That is one of the qualities of something that is maximally great. However, bananas can be eaten. If the banana can be eaten then it is not metaphysically necessary! If the banana cannot be eaten then it is not a banana! The idea of a maximally great banana is just a logically incoherent idea. "There is another flaw in Pro's possible world argument. If a god existing in a possible world means that it's in our real world, then that means that every idea of a god or of gods is true. That would be pretty contradictory to many ideas of god. " + This is a false statement. All the ontological argument proves true is a maximally great being. Other religions such as Hinduism have hundreds upon hundreds of gods which are not maximally great. They have a sun god, moon god, wind god and so on, but none of them are maximally great. The ontological can be used only for maximally great beings which corresponds to the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam respectably. As I said in the first round, I am not referring to any specific deity, just a maximally great being. "Pro stated that I (an atheist) have to maintain some ideas. The first one is that I have to maintain that it is impossible for a god to exist. No, I do not because it is possible for anything to exist. " + This is also a false statement. There are many things that cannot possibly exists due to the law of contradiction. Things such as a married bachelor or a triangle with four sides exist in no possible world. "Pro claims that he's not changing the burden of proof even though that's what he's doing. Pro doesn't have to prove that a god is real (something Pro couldn't do) so I don't have to prove that a god is impossible. The debate is about probability of a god's existence. " + I am sorry if you feel that I am trying to change the burden of proof. That is not what I am doing. I was just pointing out that if God exists in some possible world, he exists in all of them, which mean he exists in the actual world. Therefore, if Gods existence is even possible, then if follows he exists in every possible world. The only way he would not exists in the actual world is if he could not exists in any possible world. 1. Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? + Not at all! I believe KeytarHero gave an example like this (all credit to him). If I said I had a brown dog with 4 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. If I said I had a purple dog with 6 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. Extraordinary claims do not require any extraordinary evidence. Just regular evidence. 2. "Concepts for the creation of our universe such as the Big Bang Theory have been observed, such as the expansion of our universe [1]. We are just studying concepts such as the Big Bang and are finding evidence. " + The big bang theory is not contrary to the existence of a maximally great being. The maximally great being could have caused the big bang to occur. 3. "Every idea of religion was made by people. There is no legitimate proof to the contrary. Religion was arguable created by people's need to know the unknown. " + I think everybody can realize this is just the genetic fallacy. Even if religion was just created because people want to "know the unknown" it does not make it false by any means. Conclusion: My opponent used much of his second round by informing us that possible worlds do not actually exist and have no bearing on reality. I agree with most of what he said even! Other possible worlds do not describe the actual world. They only describe the way things could have been. Con has not given us any reason to believe that if God does exists in a possible world, then he does not exist in every possible world and therefore not in the actual world. He also tried to parody the ontological argument with the maximally great banana, but I believe I have shown that to be just a logically incoherent idea.